Bayer Petition 09-328-01 for Determination of Nonregulated Status of Double Herbicide-tolerant 

Soybean (Glycine Max) Event FG72

OECD Unique Identifier: 

FG72

Draft Environmental Assessment 

April 2012

Agency Contact 

Cindy Eck

Biotechnology Regulatory Services

4700 River Road

USDA, APHIS 

Riverdale, MD 20737 

Fax: (301) 734-8669

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of 

race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. 

(Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for 

communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’S TARGET Center 

at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326–W, Whitten Building, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250–9410 or call (202) 720–5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal 

opportunity provider and employer. 

Mention of companies or commercial products in this report does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture over others not mentioned. USDA neither guarantees nor warrants the standard of any 

product mentioned. Product names are mentioned solely to report factually on available data and to provide specific 

information. 

This publication reports research involving pesticides. All uses of pesticides must be registered by appropriate State 

and/or Federal agencies before they can be recommended. 
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................................................V

LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................VII

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................VIII

1 PURPOSE AND NEED........................................................................................................1

1.1 Coordinated Framework Review and Regulatory Review.............................................1

1.2 Petition for Determination of Nonregulated Status: Double Herbicide-tolerant 

Soybean Event FG72 .....................................................................................................3

1.3 Purpose of Product .........................................................................................................3

1.4 Purpose and Need for APHIS Action.............................................................................4

1.5 Public Involvement ........................................................................................................4

1.6 Issues Considered...........................................................................................................5

2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT............................................................................................6

2.1 Agricultural Production of Soybean...............................................................................6

2.1.1 Acreage and Range of Soybean Production............................................................6

2.1.2 Agronomic Practices...............................................................................................7

2.1.3 Organic Soybean Production ................................................................................10

2.2 Physical Environment ..................................................................................................11

2.2.1 Soil Quality...........................................................................................................11

2.2.2 Water Resources ...................................................................................................12

2.2.3 Air Quality ............................................................................................................12

2.2.4 Climate Change.....................................................................................................12

2.3 Biological Resources....................................................................................................13

2.3.1 Animal Communities............................................................................................13

2.3.2 Plant Communities................................................................................................14

2.3.3 Gene Flow and Weediness....................................................................................15

2.3.4 Microorganisms ....................................................................................................15

2.3.5 Biodiversity...........................................................................................................15

2.4 Human Health ..............................................................................................................16

2.5 Animal Feed .................................................................................................................17

2.6 Socioeconomic .............................................................................................................17

2.6.1 Domestic Economic Environment ........................................................................17

2.6.2 Trade Economic Environment ..............................................................................19

3 ALTERNATIVES...............................................................................................................20

3.1 No Action Alternative: Continuation as a Regulated Article......................................20
iii

3.2 Preferred Alternative: Determination that FG72 Soybean is No Longer a 

Regulated Article .........................................................................................................20

3.3 Alternatives Considered But Rejected from Further Consideration ............................21

3.3.1 Prohibit Any FG72 Soybean from Being Released ..............................................21

3.3.2 Approve the Petition in Part..................................................................................21

3.3.3 Isolation Distance between FG72 and Non-GE Soybean Production 

and Geographical Restrictions..............................................................................22

3.3.4 Requirement of Testing for FG72 Soybean..........................................................22

3.4 Comparison of Alternatives .........................................................................................23

4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .........................................................................25

4.1 Scope of Analysis.........................................................................................................25

4.2 Agricultural Production of Soybean.............................................................................26

4.2.1 Acreage and Range of Soybean Production..........................................................26

4.2.2 Agronomic Practices.............................................................................................26

4.2.3 Organic Soybean Production ................................................................................32

4.3 Physical Environment ..................................................................................................33

4.3.1 Soil Quality...........................................................................................................33

4.3.2 Water Resources ...................................................................................................34

4.3.3 Air Quality ............................................................................................................36

4.3.4 Climate Change.....................................................................................................37

4.4 Biological Resources....................................................................................................38

4.4.1 Animal Communities............................................................................................38

4.4.2 Plant Communities................................................................................................40

4.4.3 Gene Flow and Weediness....................................................................................43

4.4.4 Microorganisms ....................................................................................................44

4.4.5 Biodiversity...........................................................................................................45

4.5 Human Health ..............................................................................................................46

4.6 Animal Feed .................................................................................................................47

4.7 Socioeconomic Impacts................................................................................................48

4.7.1 Domestic Economic Environment ........................................................................48

4.7.2 Trade Economic Environment ..............................................................................50

5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS................................................................................................51

5.1 Assumptions Used for Cumulative Impacts Analysis..................................................51

5.2 Cumulative Impacts: Acreage and Range of Soybean Production ..............................51

5.3 Cumulative Impacts: Agronomic Practices..................................................................52

5.4 Cumulative Impacts: Organic Soybean Production .....................................................53

5.5 Cumulative Impacts: Soil Quality................................................................................54

5.6 Cumulative Impacts: Water Resources........................................................................54

5.7 Cumulative Impacts: Air Quality .................................................................................55
iv

5.8 Cumulative Impacts: Climate Change..........................................................................55

5.9 Cumulative Impacts: Animal Communities.................................................................55

5.10 Cumulative Impacts: Plant Communities.....................................................................56

5.11 Cumulative Impacts: Gene Flow and Weediness.........................................................59

5.12 Cumulative Impacts: Microorganisms.........................................................................59

5.13 Cumulative Impacts: Biodiversity................................................................................59

5.14 Cumulative Impacts: Human Health............................................................................60

5.15 Cumulative Impacts: Animal Feed...............................................................................60

5.16 Cumulative Impacts: Domestic Economic Environment.............................................61

5.17 Cumulative Impacts: Trade Economic Environment...................................................61

6 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ...........................................................62

6.1 Potential Effects of FG72 Soybean on TES.................................................................64

6.2 Potential Effects of the use of Glyphosate and Isoxaflutole ........................................66

7 CONSIDERATION OF EXECUTIVE ORDERS, STANDARDS, 

AND TREATIES RELATING TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS..............................70

7.1 Executive Orders with Domestic Implications.............................................................70

7.2 International Implications ............................................................................................72

7.3 Compliance with Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act ................................................73

7.4 Impacts on Unique Characteristics of Geographic Areas ............................................74

7.5 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as Amended ............................................75

8 LIST OF PREPARERS.......................................................................................................76

9 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................77

10 APPENDIX A: ISOXAFLUTOLE – DESCRIPTION AND CURRENT 

USES..................................................................................................................................91

11 APPENDIX B: GLYPHOSATE – SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

FATE AND TOXICITY PROFILE.................................................................................106

12 APPENDIX C: SUPPLEMENTAL FIGURES AND TABLES ......................................113

13 APPENDIX D: SOYBEAN COMMODITY PRODUCTION.........................................120
v

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Assessment of resistance risk by agricultural management options................................ 4

Table 2. U.S. export markets for soybean and soybean products. ............................................... 19

Table 3. Summary of issues of potential impacts and consequences of alternatives................... 23

Table 4. Maximum soybean herbicide application rates ............................................................. 31

Table 5. Use of glyphosate and isoxaflutole (IFT) in U.S. corn production, 2000 – 2010.......... 32

Table 6. Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ) of soybean herbicides with respect to 

several factors related to water resources ..................................................................................... 36

Table 7. Summary of the most sensitive endpoints from submitted terrestrial toxicity 

studies for isoxaflutole (IFT) ........................................................................................................ 39

Table 8. Summary of the most sensitive endpoints for submitted aquatic toxicity studies for 

isoxaflutole (IFT).......................................................................................................................... 39

Table 9. Control of common broadleaf and grassy weeds by isoxaflutole (IFT) 

(Balance® Pro) ............................................................................................................................. 41

Table 10. Control of glyphosate-resistant broadleaf and grassy weeds found in soybean by

isoxaflutole (IFT) (Balance®Pro)................................................................................................. 42

Table 11. Use of glyphosate and mesotrione in U.S. corn production, 2001 – 2010. ................. 53

Table 12. Glyphosate-resistant weed (in soybean fields) control profiles for isoxaflutole 

(IFT) and mesotrione .................................................................................................................... 57

Table A1. Summary of environmental fate information for IFT and DKN................................. 93

Table A2. Estimated isoxaflutole (IFT) registration review timeline.......................................... 94

Table A3. Acute toxicity profile of isoxaflutole (IFT) and degradation products....................... 96

Table A4. Subchronic and chronic toxicity and genotoxicity profile: Isoxaflutole (IFT) and 

products......................................................................................................................................... 96

Table A5. Specific use directions for Balance® PRO herbicide alone as part of a planned 

sequential weed control program................................................................................................ 103

Table A6. Proposed directions for use of isoxaflutole (IFT) on isoxaflutole-tolerant soybean 

varieties....................................................................................................................................... 103

Table A7. Specific use directions for Balance® PRO herbicide applied alone, as a tank-mix, 

or as part of a planned sequential program for weed control in isoxaflutole (IFT) tolerant 

soybean varieties......................................................................................................................... 104

Table B1. Physical and chemical properties of glyphosate. ...................................................... 107

Table B2. Environmental fate data for glyphosate. ................................................................... 108
vi

Table B3. Aquatic toxicity profile for glyphosate and/or its salts............................................. 110

Table B4. Terrestrial toxicity profile for glyphosate and/or its salts. ........................................ 111

Table C1. Soybean acreage in U.S. states, 2010........................................................................ 114

Table C2. Irrigation of soybean acres in U.S. states, 2007........................................................ 115

Table C3. Common soybean insect pests. ................................................................................. 117

Table C4. Common weeds in soybean production: Midwest Region........................................ 117

Table C5. Common weeds in soybean production: Eastern coastal Region.............................. 118

Table C6. Common weeds in soybean production: Mid-south Region..................................... 118

Table D1. Industrial soybean oil production 2008 - 2009. ........................................................ 122
vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. U.S. soybean production, 2010....................................................................................... 7

Figure 2. Adoption of GE herbicide-tolerant soybean and glyphosate use on U.S. soybean 

fields, 1990 – 2006.......................................................................................................................... 9

Figure 3. Extent of glyphosate use and diversity of herbicides applied in U.S. soybean 

production, 1990 – 2006. ................................................................................................................ 9

Figure 4. U.S. certified organic soybean, 2008............................................................................ 11

Figure 5. Glyphosate-resistant weeds in the U.S. soybean fields. ............................................... 14

Figure 6. General flow of U.S. soybean commodities................................................................. 18

Figure 7. U.S. inventory and use of harvested soybeans, 2010 ................................................... 18

Figure 8. Percent and application rate of nitrogen fertilization in U.S. soybean production, 

1992 – 2006................................................................................................................................... 28

Figure 9. Comparison of typical soybean fatty acids and crude protein between FG72 

soybean and Jack........................................................................................................................... 49

Figure 10. Weed control provided by herbicides isoxaflutole (IFT) and mesotrione.................. 57

Figure A1. Metabolic/degradative fate of isoxaflutole (IFT) in plants and soil .......................... 91

Figure A2. Activity of isoxaflutole (IFT) in plants...................................................................... 92

Figure C1. Global distribution of herbicide-resistant biotypes, 2010........................................ 113

Figure C2. Global herbicide-resistant biotypes by mode of action, 1950 – 2010 ..................... 113
viii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

4-HPPD 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase

AIA advanced informed agreement

AMS Agricultural Marketing Service

AOSCA American Organization of Seed Certifying Agencies

APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

BRS Biotechnology Regulatory Services (within USDA–APHIS)

Bt Bacillus thuringiensis protein

CAA Clean Air Act

CBD Convention on Biological Diversity

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations (United States)

CH4 methane

CO2 carbon dioxide

CWA Clean Water Act

DNA deoxyribonucleic acid

DKN diketonitrile

EA environmental assessment

EFED Environmental Fate and Effects Division

EIQ Environmental Impact Quotient

EIS environmental impact statement

EO Executive Order

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EPSPS 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase

ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973

ESPP Endangered Species Protection Program

FDA U.S. Food and Drug Administration 

FFDCA Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

FSANZ Food Standards Australia New Zealand

FR Federal Register

FQPA Food Quality Protection Act
ix

GE genetically engineered

GHG greenhouse gas

HED Health Effects Division

IFT isoxaflutole

IP Identity Preservation

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

ISPM International Standard for Phytosanitary Measure

IPPC International Plant Protection Convention

LD50 lethal dose that kills 50% of the animals being tested

LMO Living modified organism

MoA Mode of Action

N2O nitrous oxide

NABI North American Biotechnology Initiative

NAPPO North American Plant Protection Organization

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and subsequent amendments

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOEL no observable effect level

NOP National Organic Program

NPS non-point source

NRC National Research Council

OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

PIP Plant incorporated protectants

PPRA Plant Pest Risk Assessment

PPA Plant Protection Act

PRA Pest Risk Assessment

RSPM Regional Standards for Phytosanitary Measures

RUP Restricted Use Pesticide

TES threatened and endangered species

TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act

U.S. United States

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Services

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
x

USDA-ERS U.S. Department of Agriculture-Economic Research Service

USDA-FAS U.S. Department of Agriculture-Foreign Agricultural Service

USDA-NASS U.S. Department of Agriculture-National Agricultural Statistics Service

USDA-NOP U.S. Department of Agriculture-National Organic Program

USC United States Code

WPS Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides
1

1 PURPOSE AND NEED

1.1 Coordinated Framework Review and Regulatory Review

"Protecting American agriculture" is the basic charge of the United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). APHIS provides 

leadership in ensuring the health and care of plants and animals. The agency improves 

agricultural productivity and competitiveness, and contributes to the national economy and the 

public health. USDA asserts that all methods of agricultural production (conventional, 

conventional with genetically engineered crops, and organic systems) can provide benefits to the 

environment, consumers, and farm income.

Since 1986, the United States government has regulated genetically engineered (GE) organisms 

pursuant to a regulatory framework known as the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of 

Biotechnology (Coordinated Framework) (51 FR 23302; 57 FR 22984). The Coordinated 

Framework, published by the Office of Science and Technology Policy, describes the 

comprehensive federal regulatory policy for ensuring the safety of biotechnology research and 

products and explains how federal agencies will use existing Federal statutes in a manner to 

ensure public health and environmental safety while maintaining regulatory flexibility to avoid 

impeding the growth of the biotechnology industry. The Coordinated Framework is based on 

several important guiding principles: (1) agencies should define those transgenic organisms 

subject to review to the extent permitted by their respective statutory authorities; (2) agencies are 

required to focus on the characteristics and risks of the biotechnology product, not the process by

which it is created; (3) agencies are mandated to exercise oversight of GE organisms only when 

there is evidence of “unreasonable” risk.

The Coordinated Framework explains the regulatory roles and authorities for the three major 

agencies involved in regulating GE organisms: USDA APHIS, the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

USDA-APHIS

APHIS regulations at 7 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 340, which were promulgated 

pursuant to authority granted by the Plant Protection Act, as amended (7 United States Code 

(U.S.C.) 7701–7772), regulate the introduction (importation, interstate movement, or release into 

the environment) of certain GE organisms and products. A GE organism is no longer subject to 

the plant pest provisions of the Plant Protection Act or to the regulatory requirements of 7 CFR 

part 340 when APHIS determines that it is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk. A GE organism is 

considered a regulated article if the donor organism, recipient organism, vector, or vector agent 

used in engineering the organism belongs to one of the taxa listed in the regulation (7 CFR 

340.2) and is also considered a plant pest. A GE organism is also regulated under Part 340 when 

APHIS has reason to believe that the GE organism may be a plant pest or APHIS does not have 

information to determine if the GE organism is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk. 

A person may petition the agency that a particular regulated article is unlikely to pose a plant 

pest risk, and, therefore, is no longer regulated under the plant pest provisions of the Plant 

Protection Act (PPA) or the regulations at 7 CFR 340. The petitioner is required to provide 
2

information under § 340.6(c)(4) related to plant pest risk that the agency may use to determine 

whether the regulated article is unlikely to present a greater plant pest risk than the unmodified 

organism. A GE organism is no longer subject to the regulatory requirements of 7 CFR part 340 

or the plant pest provisions of the Plant Protection Act when APHIS determines that it is unlikely

to pose a plant pest risk.

Under the authority of the plant pest provisions of the Plant Protection Act and 7 CFR part 340, 

APHIS has issued regulations for the safe development and use of GE organisms. As required 

by 7 CFR 340.6, APHIS must respond to petitioners that request a determination of the regulated 

status of GE organisms. When a petition for nonregulated status is submitted, APHIS must make 

a determination if the GE organism is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk. If APHIS determines 

based on its Plant Pest Risk Assessment (PPRA) that the GE organism is unlikely to pose a plant 

pest risk, the genetically engineered organism is no longer subject the plant pest provisions of the 

Plant Protection Act and 7 CFR part 340.

Environmental Protection Agency

Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.), 

EPA regulates the use of pesticides, including plant-incorporated protectants, requiring 

registration of a pesticide for a specific use prior to distribution or sale of the pesticide for a 

proposed use pattern. EPA examines the ingredients of the pesticide; the particular site or crop

on which it is to be used; the amount, frequency, and timing of its use; and storage and disposal 

practices. Prior to registration for a new use for a new or previously registered pesticide, EPA 

must determine through testing that the pesticide will not cause unreasonable adverse effects on 

humans, the environment, and non-target species when used in accordance with label 

instructions. EPA must also approve the language used on the pesticide label in accordance with 

40 CFR part 158. Once registered, a pesticide may not legally be used unless the use is 

consistent with the approved directions for use on the pesticide's label or labeling. The overall 

intent of the label is to provide clear directions for effective product performance while 

minimizing risks to human health and the environment. 

EPA also sets tolerances for residues of pesticides on and in food and animal feed, or establishes an 

exemption from the requirement for a tolerance, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 

(FFDCA). EPA is required, before establishing pesticide tolerance, to reach a safety determination 

based on a finding of reasonable certainty of no harm under the FFDCA, as amended by the Food 

Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA). FDA enforces the pesticide tolerances set by EPA.

Food and Drug Administration

FDA regulates GE organisms under the authority of the FFDCA (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.). The 

FDA published its policy statement concerning regulation of products derived from new plant 

varieties, including those derived from genetic engineering, in the Federal Register on May 29, 

1992 (57 FR 22984). Under this policy, FDA implements a voluntary consultation process to 

ensure that human food and animal feed safety issues or other regulatory issues, such as labeling, 

are resolved before commercial distribution of bioengineered food. This voluntary consultation 

process provides a way for developers to receive assistance from FDA in complying with their 

obligations under Federal food safety laws prior to marketing.
3

1.2 Petition for Determination of Nonregulated Status: Double Herbicide-tolerant 

Soybean Event FG72

Bayer CropScience of Research Triangle Park, NC submitted petition 09-328-01 to APHIS in 

June 2011 seeking a determination of nonregulated status for soybean event FG72 that can 

tolerate exposure to the herbicides glyphosate and isoxaflutole (IFT). FG72 soybean is currently

regulated under 7 CFR part 340. Interstate movements and field trials of FG72 soybean have 

been conducted under permits issued or notifications acknowledged by APHIS since 2001. 

These field trials were conducted in diverse growing regions within the U.S., including Indiana, 

Iowa, Nebraska, Florida, Arizona, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, and Minnesota. Data resulting 

from these field trials are described in the FG72 petition (Bayer, 2011c) and analyzed for plant 

pest risk in the USDA-APHIS Plant Pest Risk Assessment (PPRA) (USDA-APHIS, 2012b).

The petition stated that APHIS should not regulate FG72 soybean because it does not present a 

plant pest risk. In the event of a determination of nonregulated status, the nonregulated status 

would include FG72 soybean, any progeny derived from crosses between FG72 and 

conventional soybean, including crosses of FG72 with other biotechnology-derived soybean that 

are no longer subject to subject to the regulatory requirements of 7 CFR part 340 or the plant pest 

provisions of the Plant Protection Act.

1.3 Purpose of Product

Weed management is one of the largest concerns in soybean production. The development of 

glyphosate-resistant weeds has generally compounded this concern. Several management 

options are available to manage current glyphosate-resistant weed populations and limit the 

potential development of glyphosate resistance in other weed species (Table 1). Reflecting the 

first of these potential management options, the development of FG72 soybean facilitates the use 

of an additional herbicide with a different mode of action (MoA) to control soybean weed 

populations, including those weed populations that are resistant to glyphosate.

Under typical field conditions, application of glyphosate or IFT would disrupt soybean aromatic 

amino acid and carotenoid biosynthesis, respectively (RSC, 2011; USDA-APHIS, 2008). FG72 

soybean is engineered to tolerate exposure to the herbicides glyphosate and IFT. This double 

herbicide-tolerant phenotype is enabled by stable introduction of the 2mEPSPS and HPPD W336 

proteins that correspondingly confer glyphosate and IFT tolerance. 2mEPSPS is derived from 

Zea mays and HPPD W336 is derived from the A32 strain of Pseudomonas fluorescens. Both 

introduced proteins impart herbicide tolerance in a mechanistically similar manner, where 

2mEPSPS and HPPD W336 are less susceptible to competitive inhibition by glyphosate and IFT, 

respectively, than native soybean EPSPS (5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase) or 4-

HPPD (4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase) proteins.
4

Table 1. Assessment of resistance risk by agricultural management options.

Management Option

 Risk of Resistance

Low Moderate High

Herbicide mix or rotation in 

cropping system > 2 MoA*

2 MoA*1 MoA*

Weed control in cropping 

system

Cultural**, mechanical, 

and chemical

Cultural** and 

chemical Chemical only

Use of same MoA*per season Once More than once Many times

Cropping system Full rotation Limited rotation No rotation

Resistance status to MoA* Unknown Limited Common

Weed infestation Low Moderate High

Control in the last three years Good Declining Poor

*Mode of Action. **Cultural control includes stubble burning, competitive crops, stale seedbeds, etc. See HRAC

guidelines for more details. Source: HRAC (2012).

1.4 Purpose and Need for APHIS Action

As required by 7 CFR 340.6, APHIS must respond to petitioners that request a determination of 

the regulated status of genetically engineered organisms, including GE plants such as FG72

soybean. APHIS has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to consider the potential 

environmental effects of an agency determination of nonregulated status consistent with Council 

of Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) NEPA regulations and the USDA and APHIS NEPA 

implementing regulations and procedures(40 CFR parts 1500-1508, 7 CFR part 1b, and 7 CFR 

part 372). This EA has been prepared in order to specifically evaluate the effects on the quality

of the human environment1that may result from a determination of nonregulated status of FG72 

soybean.

1.5 Public Involvement

APHIS routinely seeks public comment on EAs prepared in response to petitions seeking a 

determination of nonregulated status of a regulated GE organism. APHIS does this through a 

notice published in the Federal Register. The issues discussed in this EA were developed by 

considering the public concerns as well as issues raised in public comments submitted for other 

EAs of GE organisms, concerns raised in lawsuits, as well as those issues of concern that have 

been raised by various stakeholders. These issues, including those regarding the agricultural 

production of soybean using various production methods and the environmental and food/feed 

safety of GE plants were addressed to analyze the potential environmental impacts of FG72 

soybean.

 

1

Under NEPA regulations, the “human environment” includes “the natural and physical environment and the 

relationship of people with that environment” (40 CFR §1508.14).
5

This EA, the petition submitted by Bayer CropScience, and APHIS’s PPRA will be available for 

public comment for a period of 60 days (7 CFR § 340.6(d)(2)). Comments received by the end of 

the 60-day period will be analyzed and used to inform APHIS’ determination decision of the 

regulated status of FG72 soybean and to assist APHIS in determining whether an Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) is required prior to the determination decision of the regulated status of 

this soybean variety.

1.6 Issues Considered

The list of resource areas considered in this draft EA were developed by APHIS through 

experience in considering public concerns and issues raised in public comments submitted for 

other EAs of GE organisms. The resource areas considered also address concerns raised in 

previous and unrelated lawsuits, as well as issues that have been raised by various stakeholders 

in the past. The resource areas considered in this EA can be categorized as follows: 

Agricultural Production Considerations:

 Acreage and range of soybean production

 Agronomic practices

 Organic soybean production

Environmental Considerations:

 Soil Quality

 Water resources

 Air quality

 Climate change

 Animal communities

 Plant communities

 Gene flow and weediness

 Microorganisms

 Biodiversity

Human Health Considerations:

 Public health and worker safety

Livestock Health Considerations:

 Animal feed/livestock health

Socioeconomic Considerations:

 Domestic economic environment 

 Trade economic environment
6

2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

2.1 Agricultural Production of Soybean

2.1.1 Acreage and Range of Soybean Production

Soybean production in the U.S. extends over a wide range of geographies and regions, and is 

generally grown from North Dakota eastward. In 2010, 76.6 million acres of soybeans were 

cultivated in at least 31 states (USDA-NASS, 2011c). Also in the 2010 growing season, more 

than one million acres of soybeans were harvested in the following 18 states (from highest to 

lowest acreage): Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, Indiana, Nebraska, Missouri, Ohio, Kansas, South 

Dakota, North Dakota, Arkansas, Michigan, Mississippi, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Tennessee, 

Kentucky, and Louisiana (Figure 1 and Table C1, Appendix C). Due to increased domestic and 

international demand for soybeans and its products, the U.S. soybean harvest is projected to 

slightly increase to approximately 79.5 million acres by 2020 (USDA-ERS, 2011c). 

In general, soybean is profitably grown on high quality agricultural land, not lands of lower 

productivity (EIA, 2007; USDA-NASS, 2011b). Much of the high quality land in the U.S. is 

already committed to agricultural production (EPA, 2007) and in 2002, the USDA Economic 

Research Service (USDA-ERS) estimated that only 2.1 percent of cropland was idle (Lubowski 

et al., 2002). At the same time, total U.S. agricultural acreage decreased (EIA, 2007). To satisfy

greater soybean demand, additional soybean acreage was generally planted at the expense of 

alternative crops, such as cotton or hay, with minor contributions from land exiting Conservation 

Reserve Program (CRP) agreements (O'Brian, 2010; USDA-ERS, 2011e). Consequently, it is 

unlikely that previously uncultivated land will be managed for future soybean production, but 

rather that growth of soybean production will compete with other agricultural plantings (EIA, 

2007; USDA-ERS, 2011d).
7

Figure 1. U.S. soybean production, 2010. Source: USDA-NASS (2011c).

2.1.2 Agronomic Practices

In this EA, conventional farming is defined as any farming system where synthetic pesticides or 

fertilizers may be used. Conventional farming covers a broad scope of farming practices, 

ranging from farmers who occasionally use synthetic pesticides and fertilizers to those farmers 

whose harvest depends on regular inputs of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. Conventional 

farming also includes the use of GE varieties that are no longer subject to the regulatory

requirements of 7 CFR part 340 or the plant pest provisions of the Plant Protection Act.

Soybean varieties are developed and adapted to certain geographical zones (i.e., maturity groups) 

(Helsel and Minor, 1993; NSRL, 2011). Additionally, GE herbicide-tolerant soybean varieties 

represents the most common soybean variety cultivated in the U.S., accounting for 94 percent of 

soybean varieties planted in 2011 (USDA-ERS, 2011a). The broad adoption of GE herbicidetolerant soybean production systems is attributed to the simplification of herbicide application 

practices and positive contributions to productivity and yield (Carpenter and Gianessi, 1999; 

Fernandez-Cornejo and McBride, 2000). Among the GE herbicide-tolerant soybean varieties 

commercially available, glyphosate-tolerant varieties represent the vast majority that is planted in 

U.S. production fields. Since its introduction in 1996, domestic adoption of glyphosate-tolerant

soybean varieties expanded to the majority of the market (NRC, 2010). While agronomic 

practices may be dependent on the soybean maturity group and variety cultivated, common 

management strategies are shared across regions. These include management strategies related 

to tillage, pest management, fertilization, and crop rotation.

Tillage

The broad adoption of glyphosate-tolerant soybean varieties and glyphosate has influenced 

several aspects of soybean management. In particular, tillage trends have been affected. Prior 

to planting, the soil must be stripped of weeds that would otherwise compete with soybean for 

space, water, and light. Tillage represents a mechanical means of weed control and is generally 

characterized by the amount of remaining in-field residue and may be classified as conservation 

(> 30 percent), reduced (15-30 percent), or intensive (0-15 percent) (CTIC, 2008). Conservation 

tillage practices by U.S. soybean growers increased following the commercialization of 

glyphosate-tolerant soybean in 1996, totaling 42 percent of soybean acreage in 2008 (CTIC, 

2008; NRC, 2010). Conservation tillage adoption is generally associated with broad-spectrum 

herbicide use, due to the capacity of broad-spectrum herbicides to burn down a variety of weed 

populations prior to planting a crop. Though the causality between herbicide-tolerant soybean 

adoption and conservation tillage may be debated (Fernandez-Cornejo et al., 2003; Mensah, 

2007), most empirical evidence suggests a direct relationship between grower adoption of 

herbicide-tolerant crops and conservation tillage (NRC, 2010).

Fertilization and Crop Rotation

Soybeans may remove up to 70 pounds of nitrogen from the soil when a 50-bushel yield of 

soybean is attained (Hoeft et al., 2000). USDA-ERS estimates that less than 40 percent of 

soybean acres in the U.S. receive nitrogen fertilizer (USDA-ERS, 2010d). The nitrogen 

requirement of soybean is often provided through fertilization of the previous rotation crop or 
8

through a symbiotic relationship with nodulating bacteria in root tissue (Ferguson et al., 2012). 

Given the important role of these bacteria for meeting nitrogen needs of soybean, commercial 

sources of nodulating bacteria inoculants can be applied to soybean seeds just before planting

(Beuerlein, 2005). 

The benefits of crop rotation in soybean include improved yield and profitability of one or both 

crops, decreased need for additional nitrogen on the crop following soybean, increased residue 

cover, mitigation of pest cycles, reduced soil erosion and improved soil quality, or reduced 

runoff of agricultural inputs (Al-Kaisi et al., 2003). According to USDA-ERS, 95 percent of the 

soybean-planted acreage has been in some form of a crop rotation system since 1991 (USDAERS, 2011b). In a survey of major corn/soybean production states, corn and soybean were 

alternated on 72 to 80 percent of acreage, other rotations were grown on 16 to 20 percent of 

acreage, and soybean was grown continuously on 5 to 12 percent of acreage between 1996-2002

(Sandretto and Payne, 2006). In another analysis, the majority of the U.S. soybean acreage (68.6 

percent) is rotated to corn (Monsanto, 2010) at page 157, et seq.). Approximately 14.5 percent

of the soybean acreage is rotated back to soybean the following year. Other rotational crops that 

may be planted following soybean include wheat, cotton, rice, sorghum, barley, oats, and dry

beans.

Pesticide Use

Pest management is an integral part of soybean production. However, U.S. soybean growers 

generally face reduced pest pressure from insects, due in large part to the capacity of soybeans to 

experience limited insect herbivory without a reciprocal loss in grain yield (Penn State 

Extension, 2011). This recalcitrance to insect damage is evident in the low use of insecticides on 

cultivated soybean acreage; in 2006, insecticides were applied on 16 percent of soybean acres, 

with no single insecticide exceeding 6 percent of chemically-treated acreage (USDA-NASS, 

2007). 

Weeds are the most problematic pests of soybean production fields, resulting in a 12 to 80

percent loss in grain yield (Barrentine, 1989). Individual weed species, including glyphosateresistant species, are discussed in Section 2.3.2. Soybean growers may use a variety of methods 

to control soybean weeds. At present, application of glyphosate represents the most common 

weed management system in U.S. soybean fields (Figure 2). In 2006, 98 percent of soybean 

acreage was subject to herbicide application; glyphosate was the most-widely applied herbicide 

on these chemically-treated acres at 92 percent (USDA-NASS, 2007). While total herbicide use 

trends are subject to debate, it is clear that an herbicide-substitution effect occurred in U.S. 

soybean production (Benbrook, 2009; Fernandez-Cornejo et al., 2003; Fernandez-Cornejo et al., 

2009). Since 1996, glyphosate use has increased at the expense of alternative herbicides, with 

respect to total pounds of active ingredient per acre (lbs. ai/acre) applied (Fernandez-Cornejo et 

al., 2009; NRC, 2010). This statement, however, should not be misinterpreted to mean that the 

diversity of herbicides available to U.S. soybean growers has decreased; rather, the diversity of 

herbicides used in U.S. soybean production fields has gradually increased while applied 

quantities of those same herbicides (except glyphosate) have generally decreased (Figure 3). 

However, it is prudent to note that total herbicide use may not be an effective metric to measure 

environmental impact, as this does not effectively permit the environmental comparison of 
9

different herbicides across time or across management strategies (Fernandez-Cornejo et al., 

2009). 

Figure 2. Adoption of GE herbicide-tolerant soybean and glyphosate use on U.S. soybean 

fields, 1990 – 2006. GE glyphosate-tolerant soybean was commercialized in 1996. Sources: 

USDA-ERS (2011a) and USDA-NASS (1991, 1996, 2002, 2007).

Figure 3. Extent of glyphosate use and diversity of herbicides applied in U.S. soybean 

production, 1990 – 2006. Sources: USDA-NASS (1991, 1996, 2002, 2007).
10

2.1.3 Organic Soybean Production

In the U.S., only products produced using specific methods and certified under the USDA’s 

Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) National Organic Program (NOP) definition of organic 

farming can be marketed and labeled as “organic” (USDA-AMS, 2010a). Organic certification 

is a process-based certification, not a certification of the end product; the certification process 

specifies and audits the methods and procedures by which the product is produced.

In accordance with NOP, an accredited organic certifying agent conducts an annual review of the 

certified operation’s organic system plan and makes on-site inspections of the certified operation 

and its records. Organic growers must maintain records to show that production and handling 

procedures comply with USDA organic standards. 

The NOP regulations preclude the use of excluded methods. The NOP provides the following 

guidance under 7 CFR Section 205.105:

...to be sold or labeled as “100 percent organic”, “organic” or “made with organic 

(specified ingredients or group(s)),” the product must be produced and handled without 

the use of:...

(a) Synthetic substances and ingredients,...

(e) Excluded methods,...

Excluded methods are then defined at 7 CFR Section 205.2 as:

A variety of methods used to genetically modify organisms or influence their 

growth and development by means that are not possible under natural conditions 

or processes and are not considered compatible with organic production. Such 

methods include cell fusion, microencapsulation and macroencapsulation, and 

recombinant DNA technology (including gene deletion, gene doubling, 

introducing a foreign gene, and changing the positions of genes when achieved 

by recombinant DNA technology). Such methods do not include the use of 

traditional breeding, conjugation, fermentation, hybridization, in vitro 

fertilization, or tissue culture.

Organic farming operations, as described by the NOP, are required to have distinct, defined 

boundaries and buffer zones to prevent unintended contact with excluded methods from 

adjoining land that is not under organic management. Organic production operations must also 

develop and maintain an organic production system plan approved by their accredited certifying 

agent. This plan enables the production operation to achieve and document compliance with the 

National Organic Standards, including the prohibition on the use of excluded methods (USDAAMS, 2010a).

Common practices organic growers may use to exclude GE products include planting only 

organic seed, planting earlier or later than neighboring farmers who may be using GE crops so 

that the crops will flower at different times, and employing adequate isolation distances between 

the organic fields and the fields of neighbors to minimize the chance that pollen will be carried 

between the fields (NCAT, 2003). Although the National Organic Standards prohibit the use of 
11

excluded methods, they do not require testing of inputs or products for the presence of excluded 

methods. The presence of a detectable residue of a product of excluded methods alone does not 

necessarily constitute a violation of the National Organic Standards (USDA-AMS, 2010a). The 

current NOP regulations do not specify an acceptable threshold level for the adventitious 

presence of GE materials in an organic-labeled product. The unintentional presence of the 

products of excluded methods will not affect the status of an organic product or operation when 

the operation has not used excluded methods and has taken reasonable steps to avoid contact 

with the products of excluded methods as detailed in their approved organic system plan (Ronald 

and Fouce, 2006; USDA-AMS, 2010a). 

In 2008, the U.S. produced 125,621 acres of NOP certified soybean (Figure 4).

Figure 4. U.S. certified organic soybean, 2008. Source: USDA-ERS (2010c).

2.2 Physical Environment

2.2.1 Soil Quality

Cultivation of soybean directly impacts the qualitative and quantitative attributes of soil. For 

example, conventional tillage and mechanized harvesting machinery may disturb and expose the 

top soil surface layer, leaving the land prone to degradation. In turn, degradation of soil structure 

and composition may lead to decreased water retention, a decrease in soil carbon aggregation 

and net positive carbon sequestration, and increased emission of radiatively-active gases that 

contribute to the greenhouse effect (e.g., carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitrous oxide (N2O)) (EPA, 

2010d; Lal and Bruce, 1999a). Additionally, land that is prone to degradation is also more likely

to negatively affect water resource quality and communities of organisms dependent on those 

water resources.
12

2.2.2 Water Resources

Soybean cultivation may directly affect water resources through the use of local water sources or 

indirectly through associated management practices, including tillage and the use of agricultural 

inputs. The typical amount of water required for a high-yielding soybean crop is approximately

20 inches during the growing season (Hoeft et al., 2000). While normal climatic conditions may

provide sufficient water to produce a soybean crop, precipitation may vary across states and 

irrigation may be needed to supplement precipitation amounts. Irrigation may also vary from 

year to year. In general, however, the majority of soybean acreage in the U.S. is grown with 

very little supplemental irrigation (Table C2, Appendix C) (The Keystone Center, 2009). In 

most states, irrigation water comes predominantly from groundwater sources, with comparatively 

little derived from surface water sources (USDA-NASS, 2010).

Agricultural non-point source (NPS) pollution is the primary source of discharge pollutants to 

groundwater (aquifers), flowing water (permanent or intermittent streams), or semi-static water 

(ponds, lakes, and reservoirs) (Ramanarayanan et al., 2005). NPS pollutants generally include 

agricultural inputs, such as fertilizers or pesticides. Although meteorological (e.g., precipitation, 

temperature), morphological (e.g., land use, soil type), and environmental fate drivers affect 

water quality, anthropogenic practices (product use and management) are the most relevant, as 

this driver is generally under direct grower control on a soybean farm (Ramanarayanan et al., 

2005). In particular, tillage practices often have a strong, indirect effect on water quality through 

the improvement of soil quality and water retention characteristics. Agricultural pollutants 

released by soil erosion include sediments, fertilizers, and pesticides that are introduced to area 

lakes and streams when they are carried off of fields by rain or irrigation waters (EPA, 2005).

2.2.3 Air Quality

Agriculture, including land-use changes for farming, is estimated to be responsible for eight

percent of all human-induced GHG emissions in the U.S. (Massey and Ulmer, 2010). Many 

agricultural activities affect air quality, including smoke from agricultural burning, machinery, 

and N2O emissions from the use of nitrogen fertilizer (Aneja et al., 2009; EPA, 2010b; Hoeft et 

al., 2000). Emissions released from agricultural equipment (e.g., irrigation pumps and tractors) 

include carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, reactive organic gases, particulate matter, and sulfur 

oxides (EPA, 2010b). Tillage contributes to the release of greenhouse gases (GHG) because of 

the loss of CO2 to the atmosphere and the exposure and oxidation of soil organic matter (Baker et 

al., 2005b). Pesticides may volatilize after application to soil or plant surfaces and move 

following wind erosion (Vogel et al., 2008).

2.2.4 Climate Change

Climate change represents a statistical change in global climate conditions, including shifts in the 

frequency of extreme weather (Cook et al., 2008; Karl et al., 2008). Agriculture is recognized as 

a direct (e.g., exhaust from equipment) and indirect (e.g., agricultural-related soil disturbance) 

source of GHG emissions. Greenhouse gases, including CO2, methane (CH4), and N2O, function 

as retainers of solar radiation (Aneja et al., 2009). The U.S. agricultural sector is identified as the 

second largest contributor to GHG emissions (EPA, 2010a).
13

Agriculture may also affect dynamic soil processes through tillage and other land management 

practices (Smith and Conen, 2004). In general, conservation tillage strategies are associated with 

more stable and increased carbon sequestration due to a net reduction in carbon dioxide 

emissions (Lal and Bruce, 1999b; West and Marland, 2002). Recent literature, however, 

suggests that the relationship between conservation tillage and increased carbon sequestration 

require more study, as soil depth level and seasonal sampling bias may inadvertently affect

measurements (Baker et al., 2007; Potter et al., 1998). Additionally, the relationship between 

different GHG emissions, such as carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide may influence paradigms 

related to tillage strategies and global climate change (Gregorich et al., 2005). For example, 

increased nitrous oxide emissions as a result of conservation tillage strategies may offset any

gains achieved through increased carbon sequestration. Like the relationship between 

conservation tillage strategies and carbon sequestration, a broad generalization regarding the 

impact of tillage strategy and nitrous oxide emissions is difficult, as numerous factors influence 

soil nitrification cycles, including geographic location, soil structure, moisture, and farm-level 

management practices (Grandy et al., 2006; Gregorich et al., 2006; Rochette et al., 2008). 

Global climate change may also affect agricultural crop production (CCSP, 2008). These 

potential impacts on the agro-environment and individual crops may be direct, including 

changing patterns in precipitation, temperature, and duration of growing season, or may cause 

indirect impacts influencing weed and pest pressure (Rosenzweig et al., 2001; Schmidhuber and 

Tubiello, 2007). The impacts of GE crop varieties on climate change are unclear, though it is 

likely dependent on cropping systems, production practices, geographic distribution of activities, 

and individual grower decisions. APHIS will continue to monitor developments that may lead to 

possible changes in the typical production system likely to result from GE products brought to 

APHIS for a determination of nonregulated status. The potential impact of climate change on 

agricultural output, however, has been examined in more detail. A recent Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) forecast (2007) for aggregate North American impacts on 

agriculture from climate change actually projects yield increases of 5 to 20 percent for this 

century. The IPCC report notes that certain regions of the U.S. will be more heavily impacted 

because water resources may be substantially reduced. While agricultural impacts on existing 

crops may be substantial, North American production is expected to adapt with improved 

cultivars and responsive farm management (IPPC, 2007).

2.3 Biological Resources

2.3.1 Animal Communities

Wildlife may be found within or near soybean fields. Deer and groundhogs feed on soybean and 

cause soybean damage, while feeding damage from Eastern cottontail, raccoon, squirrels, and 

other rodents is of less importance (MacGowan et al., 2006). Additionally, migratory birds may

feed on spilled soybean following harvest (Galle et al., 2009; Gamble et al., 2002). 

Crop pest insects are considered less problematic than weeds in U.S. soybean production; 

nevertheless, insect injury can impact yield, plant maturity, and seed quality. A variety of insect 

pests may be found in U.S. soybean fields, including those that feed on reproductive tissue, 

foliage, and roots/nodules (Table C3, Appendix C). Insect pests are managed during the growth 
14

and development of soybean to enhance soybean yield (Aref and Pike; Higley and Boethel, 

1994), with 16 percent of soybean acreage treated with insecticides (USDA-NASS, 2007).

2.3.2 Plant Communities

The vegetative landscape surrounding a soybean field varies with region; soybean fields may be 

surrounded by additional soybean varieties, other crops, or woodland/pasture/ grassland areas. 

Weeds are perceived to be the most substantial pest problem in soybean production, negatively 

affecting yield through competition for light, nutrients, and moisture (Aref and Pike, 1998). 

When weeds are left to compete with soybean for the entire growing season, yield losses can 

exceed 75 percent (Dalley et al., 2001). Eighty-six common weeds of soybean across three 

growing regions have been identified (Tables B4 - B6, Appendix B). 

Weed populations can change in response to agricultural management decisions, including 

decisions related to herbicide application. Weeds can develop resistance to herbicides for the 

following reasons: frequent exposure to a single herbicide, the spread of naturally-resistant 

weeds seeds, and the out-crossing of herbicide-tolerant genes from plants (GE or naturallyresistant plants) to weedy relatives. The development of herbicide resistance in weeds is not 

unique to any one country (Figure C1, Appendix C), particular herbicide (Figure C2, Appendix 

C), or crop variety. In the U.S., 76 weed species have developed resistance to at least 17 

herbicide MoAs (Heap, 2011a). Currently, nine glyphosate-resistant weeds have been identified 

in U.S. soybean fields (Figure 5), inhabiting approximately two million acres of farmland in the 

U.S. (Hubbard, 2008). 

Figure 5. Glyphosate-resistant weeds in the U.S. soybean fields. Note that presence of a 

population is unrelated to prevalence. * indicates at least one population in that states possesses 

resistance to glyphosate and another herbicide. **indicates at least one population in that state 

possesses resistance to glyphosate and two other herbicides. Source: Heap (2011a).
15

2.3.3 Gene Flow and Weediness

Gene flow is a biological process that facilitates the production of hybrid plants, introgression of 

novel alleles, and evolution of new plant genotypes. Gene flow to and from an agro-ecosystem 

can occur on both spatial and temporal scales. In general, plant pollen tends to represent the 

major reproductive method for moving across areas, while both seed and vegetative propagation

tend to promote the movement of genes across time and space. 

The rate and success of gene flow is dependent on numerous factors. General factors related to 

pollen-mediated gene flow include the presence, abundance, and distance of sexually-compatible 

plant species; overlap of flowering phenology between populations; the method of pollination; 

the biology and amount of pollen produced; or weather conditions, including temperature, wind, 

and humidity (Zapiola et al., 2008). Seed-mediated gene flow also depends on many factors, 

including the absence, presence, and magnitude of seed dormancy; contribution and participation 

in various dispersal pathways; or environmental conditions and events (Zapiola et al., 2008). 

Soybean is not native to the U.S. and there are no feral or weedy relatives. Consequently, 

soybean in the U.S. can cross only with other soybean varieties. Additionally, potential of 

soybean weediness is low, due to domestication syndrome traits that generally lower overall 

fitness outside an agricultural environment (Stewart et al., 2003). Mature soybean seeds have no 

innate dormancy, are sensitive to cold, and are not expected to survive in freezing winter 

conditions (Raper and Kramer, 1987).

2.3.4 Microorganisms

Microorganisms in the field may mediate both negative and positive outcomes. Various bacterial 

and fungal species have been identified as the causal agents of various diseases afflicting 

soybean plants (Ruhl, 2012). Additionally, soil microorganisms may play a key role in dynamic 

biochemical soil processes (Garbeva et al., 2004). They may also suppress soil-borne plant 

diseases and promote plant growth (Doran et al., 1996). The main factors affecting microbial 

population size and diversity include soil type, plant type, and agricultural management practices 

(Garbeva et al., 2004). Microbial diversity in the rhizosphere may be extensive and differ from 

the microbial community in the bulk soil (Garbeva et al., 2004).

2.3.5 Biodiversity

Biodiversity refers to all plants, animals, and microorganisms interacting in an ecosystem

(Wilson, 1988). Biodiversity provides valuable genetic resources for crop improvement and also 

provides other functions beyond food, fiber, fuel, and income (Harlan, 1975). These include 

pollination, genetic introgression, biological control, nutrient recycling, competition against 

natural enemies, soil structure, soil and water conservation, disease suppression, control of local 

microclimate, control of local hydrological processes, and detoxification of noxious chemicals

(Altieri, 1999). The loss of biodiversity results in a need for costly management practices in 

order to provide these functions to the crop (Altieri, 1999). 

The degree of biodiversity in an agroecosystem depends on four primary characteristics: 1) 

diversity of vegetation within and around the agroecosystem, 2) permanence of various crops 
16

within the system, 3) intensity of management, and 4) extent of isolation of the agroecosystem 

from natural vegetation (Southwood and Way, 1970). 

Agricultural land subject to intensive farming practices, such as that used in crop production, 

generally has low levels of biodiversity compared with adjacent natural areas. Tillage, seed bed 

preparation, planting of a monoculture crop, pesticide use, fertilizer use, and harvest result limit 

the diversity of plants and animals (Lovett et al., 2003). 

Since biological diversity can be defined and measured in many ways, APHIS considers 

determining the level of biological diversity in any crop to be complex and difficult to achieve 

concurrence. Another complication with biodiversity studies is separating expected impacts 

from indirect impacts. For example, reductions of biological control organisms are seen in some 

Bt-expressing GE crops, but are caused by reduction of the pest host population following 

transgenic pesticide expression in the transformed crop plant.

2.4 Human Health

Public health concerns surrounding GE soybean primarily involve the human consumption of GE 

soybean products. Additionally, soybean growers and farm workers may also be exposed to GE 

soybean and its respective cultivation practices. 

Under the FFDCA, it is the responsibility of food manufacturers to ensure that the products they

market are safe and properly labeled. Food derived from GE soybean must be in compliance 

with all applicable legal and regulatory requirements. GE organisms for food may undergo a 

voluntary consultation process with the FDA prior to release onto the market. Although a 

voluntary process, thus far, all applicants who wish to commercialize a GE variety that will be 

included in the food supply have completed a consultation with the FDA. 

Worker hazards in farming are common to all types of agricultural production, and include 

hazards of equipment and plant materials. Pesticide application represents the primary exposure 

route to pesticides for farm workers (USDA-NASS, 2007). However, common farm practices, 

training, and specialized equipment can mitigate exposure to pesticides by farm workers (Baker 

et al., 2005a). For example, choosing from less toxic groups of insecticides to control soybean 

insects is a good common agricultural practice. 

Agricultural pesticide exposure levels are regulated by EPA labels. EPA’s Worker Protection 

Standard (WPS) (40 CFR part 170) was published in 1992 requiring actions to reduce the risk of 

pesticide poisonings and injuries among agricultural workers and pesticide handlers. The WPS 

offers protection to more than two and a half million agricultural workers who work with 

pesticides at more than 560,000 workplaces on farms, forests, nurseries, and greenhouses. The 

WPS contains requirements for pesticide safety training, notification of pesticide applications, 

use of personal protective equipment, restricted entry intervals following pesticide application, 

decontamination supplies, and emergency medical assistance.
17

2.5 Animal Feed

Animal feed concerns surrounding GE soybean primarily involve the animal consumption of GE 

soybean products. Soybean meal is a substantial part of animal feed rations in the U.S. In 2009, 

approximately 39 million tons of soybean meal were produced, 27 million tons of which were

marketed for animal feed, with the largest volumes consumed by poultry (48 percent), swine (26 

percent), and beef (12 percent) (Soy Stats, 2010).

Similar to the regulatory control for direct consumption of soybean under the FFDCA, it is the 

responsibility of feed manufacturers to ensure that the products they market are safe and properly 

labeled. Feed derived from GE soybean must comply with all applicable legal and regulatory

requirements, which are designed to protect human health. To help ensure compliance, a 

voluntary consultation process with FDA may be implemented before release of GE plants in 

animal feed into the market.

2.6 Socioeconomic

2.6.1 Domestic Economic Environment

The domestic soybean industry is primarily composed of commodity production businesses and 

the users of soybean products (Figure 6). A more detailed description of the domestic soybean 

industry is presented in Appendix C.

In 2010, 76 million acres of soybeans were cultivated in the U.S., yielding 3.3 billion bushels at 

a value of 38.9 billion U.S. dollars (USDA-NASS, 2011c). Total 2010 U.S. inventory (2009 

remaining stocks plus 2010 production) totaled 3.5 billion bushels, with 43 percent of U.S. 

soybean destined for the export market (USDA-ERS, 2010b). The remaining 57 percent of U.S. 

soybean inventory was primarily utilized to produce soybean meal for feed, with lesser amounts 

processed for soybean oil for industrial or consumption purposes; seed and residuals; or ending 

stock for storage (Figure 7). The majority of soybean in the U.S. is used to produce animal feed 

or secondary industrial products, with only a small proportion of the soybean crop being 

consumed directly by humans (GINA, 2011). 

Soy meal typically contains about 50 percent protein by dry weight, and is the most important 

product of soybean production. Of the domestically crushed soybean, 53 percent of soybean by

weight produces meal and 19 percent produces oil (USB, 2011). Changes in fatty acid profile 

may impact food and industrial uses of the soybean oil. Fatty acid composition of the soybean 

oil affects melting point, oxidative stability, and chemical functionality, and changes in any of 

these can impact the market sector of the product (APAG, 2011). These fatty acid properties 

influence the market applications for the oil, and various foods and industrial products are 

formulated to take these properties into consideration (Cahoon, 2003; Cargill, 2011; Soy

Connection, 2011). 
18

Figure 6. General flow of U.S. soybean commodities. Size of directional arrows is 

approximately proportional to use. For example, bold arrows represent the primary path of 

soybean commodities, whereas dashed arrows represent paths of soybean use that are relatively 

minor. Businesses are boxed in gray, while commodities are unboxed.

Figure 7. U.S. inventory and use of harvested soybeans, 2010. Source: USDA-ERS (2010b).
19

2.6.2 Trade Economic Environment

The U.S. produces approximately 35 percent of the global soybean supply (Soy Stats, 2011c). In 

2010, the U.S. exported 1.6 billion bushels of soybean, which accounted for 44 percent of the 

world's soybean exports (Soy Stats, 2011b). In total, the U.S. exported $18.6 billion worth of 

soybean and soybean products globally in 2010 (Soy Stats, 2011a). China is the largest export 

market for U.S. soybean with purchases totaling $10.8 billion. Mexico is the second largest 

export market with sales of $1.5 billion in the same year (Table 2). Other important markets 

include Japan and the EU.

Table 2. U.S. export markets for soybean and soybean products. Values of exports are listed in 

millions of dollars.

 Top Ten U.S. Export Customers 2010

Soybean Exports Soybean Meal Exports Soybean Oil Exports

China+Hong Kong 10,823 Canada 354 China+Hong Kong 420

Mexico 1,495 Mexico 344 Mexico 200

Japan 1,127 Philippines 256 Morocco 198

Indonesia 806 Venezuela 217 India 133

Taiwan 653 Morocco 164 Peru 76

Germany 502 Dominican Republic 145 Algeria 71

Egypt 411 Japan 126 Domican Republic 56

Spain 349 Vietnam 116 Canada 47

South Korea 312 Guatemala 106 Venezuela 43

Turkey 250 Poland 100 Nicaragua 36

Other 1,858 Other 1,174 Other 290

Total 18,586 Total 3,103 Total 1,569

 Source: Soy Stats (2011a).
20

3 ALTERNATIVES

This document analyzes the potential environmental consequences of a determination of 

nonregulated status of FG72 soybean. To respond favorably to a petition for nonregulated status, 

APHIS must determine that FG72 is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk. APHIS has concluded 

through a PPRA that FG72 soybean is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk (USDA-APHIS, 2012b). 

Therefore, APHIS must determine that FG72 soybean is no longer subject to 7 CFR part 340 or 

the plant pest provisions of the Plant Protection Act.

Two alternatives are evaluated in this EA: (1) No Action: Continuation as a Regulated Article

and (2) Preferred Alternative: Determination that FG72 Soybean is No Longer a Regulated 

Article. APHIS has assessed the potential for environmental impacts for each alternative in the 

Environmental Consequences section.

3.1 No Action Alternative: Continuation as a Regulated Article

Under the No Action Alternative, APHIS would deny the petition. FG72 soybean and progeny 

derived from FG72 would continue to be regulated articles under the regulations at 7 CFR part

340. Permits issued or notifications acknowledged by APHIS would still be required for 

introductions of FG72 soybean and measures to ensure physical and reproductive confinement 

would continue to be implemented. APHIS might choose this alternative if there were 

insufficient evidence to demonstrate the lack of plant pest risk from the unconfined cultivation of 

FG72 soybean. 

This alternative is not the Preferred Alternative because APHIS has concluded through a PPRA 

that FG72 soybean is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk (USDA-APHIS, 2012b). Choosing this 

alternative would not satisfy the purpose and need of making a determination of plant pest risk 

status and responding to the petition seeking nonregulated status.

3.2 Preferred Alternative: Determination that FG72 Soybean is No Longer a Regulated 

Article

Under this alternative, FG72 soybean and progeny would no longer be regulated articles under 

the regulations at 7 CFR part 340. FG72 soybean is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk (USDAAPHIS, 2012b). Permits issued or notifications acknowledged by APHIS would no longer be 

required for introductions of FG72 soybean and progeny derived from this event. This 

alternative best meets the purpose and need to respond appropriately to a petition seeking

nonregulated status based on the requirements in 7 CFR part 340 and the agency’s authority

under the plant pest provisions of the Plant Protection Act. Because the agency has concluded 

that FG72 soybean is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk, a determination of nonregulated status of

FG72 soybean is a response that is consistent with the plant pest provisions of the Plant 

Protection Act, the regulations codified in 7 CFR part 340, and the biotechnology regulatory

policies in the Coordinated Framework.

Under this alternative, growers may have future access to FG72 soybean and progeny derived 

from this event if the developer decides to commercialize FG72 soybean.
21

3.3 Alternatives Considered But Rejected from Further Consideration

APHIS assembled a list of alternatives that might be considered for FG72 soybean. The agency

evaluated these alternatives with respect to the agency's authority under the plant pest provisions 

of the Plant Protection Act, and the regulations at 7 CFR part 340, with respect to environmental 

safety, efficacy, and practicality to identify which alternatives would be further considered for 

FG72 soybean. Based on this evaluation, APHIS rejected several alternatives. These 

alternatives are discussed briefly below along with the specific reasons for rejecting each.

3.3.1 Prohibit Any FG72 Soybean from Being Released

In response to public comments that stated a preference that no GE organisms enter the 

marketplace, APHIS considered prohibiting the release of FG72 soybean, including denying any

permits associated with the field testing. APHIS determined that this alternative is not 

appropriate given that APHIS has concluded that FG72 soybean is unlikely to pose a plant pest 

risk (USDA-APHIS, 2012b).

In enacting the Plant Protection Act, Congress found that 

[D]ecisions affecting imports, exports, and interstate movement of products regulated 

under [the Plant Protection Act] shall be based on sound science...§ 402(4).

On March 11, 2011, in a Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, 

the White House Emerging Technologies Interagency Policy Coordination Committee developed 

broad principles, consistent with Executive Order 13563, to guide the development and 

implementation of policies for oversight of emerging technologies (such as genetic engineering) 

at the agency level. In accordance with this memorandum, agencies should adhere to Executive 

Order 13563 and, consistent with that Executive Order, the following principle, among others, to 

the extent permitted by law, when regulating emerging technologies: 

“[D]ecisions should be based on the best reasonably obtainable scientific, technical, 

economic, and other information, within the boundaries of the authorities and mandates 

of each agency” 

Based on the PPRA (USDA-APHIS, 2012b) and the scientific data evaluated therein, APHIS 

concluded that FG72 soybean is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk. Accordingly, there is no basis 

in science for prohibiting the release of FG72 soybean.

3.3.2 Approve the Petition in Part

The regulations at 7 CFR 340.6(d)(3)(i) state that APHIS may "approve the petition in whole or 

in part." For example, a determination of nonregulated status in part may be appropriate if there 

is a plant pest risk associated with some, but not all lines described in a petition. Because APHIS 

has concluded that FG72 soybean is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk, there is no regulatory basis 

under the plant pest provisions of the Plant Protection Act for considering approval of the 

petition only in part.
22

3.3.3 Isolation Distance between FG72 and Non-GE Soybean Production and Geographical 

Restrictions

In response to public concerns of gene movement between GE and non-GE plants, APHIS 

considered requiring an isolation distance separating FG72 from non-GE soybean production. 

However, because APHIS has concluded that FG72 soybean is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk 

(USDA-APHIS, 2012b), an alternative based on requiring isolation distances would be 

inconsistent with the statutory authority under the plant pest provisions of the Plant Protection 

Act and regulations in 7 CFR part 340. 

APHIS also considered geographically restricting the production of FG72 soybean based on the 

location of production of non-GE soybean in organic production systems or production systems 

for GE-sensitive markets in response to public concerns regarding possible gene movement 

between GE and non-GE plants. However, as presented in APHIS’ PPRA for FG72 soybean, 

there are no geographic differences associated with any identifiable plant pest risks for FG72 

soybean (USDA-APHIS, 2012b). This alternative was rejected and not analyzed in detail 

because APHIS has concluded that FG72 soybean does not pose a plant pest risk, and will not 

exhibit a greater plant pest risk in any geographically restricted area. Therefore, such an 

alternative would not be consistent with APHIS’ statutory authority under the plant pest 

provisions of the Plant Protection Act and regulations in Part 340 and the biotechnology

regulatory policies embodied in the Coordinated Framework.

Based on the foregoing, the imposition of isolation distances or geographic restrictions would not 

meet APHIS’ purpose and need to respond appropriately to a petition for nonregulated status

based on the requirements in 7 CFR part 340 and the agency’s authority under the plant pest 

provisions of the Plant Protection Act. However, individuals might choose on their own to 

geographically isolate their non-GE soybean production systems from FG72 soybean or to use 

isolation distances and other management practices to minimize gene movement between 

soybean fields. Information to assist growers in making informed management decisions for 

FG72 soybean is available from the Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies (AOSCA, 

2010).

3.3.4 Requirement of Testing for FG72 Soybean

During the comment periods for other petitions for nonregulated status, some commenters 

requested USDA to require and provide testing for GE products in non-GE production systems. 

APHIS notes there are no nationally-established regulations involving testing, criteria, or limits 

of GE material in non-GE systems. Such a requirement would be extremely difficult to 

implement and maintain. Additionally, because FG72 soybean does not pose a plant pest risk

(USDA-APHIS, 2012b), the imposition of any type of testing requirements is inconsistent with 

the plant pest provisions of the Plant Protection Act, the regulations at 7 CFR part 340 and 

biotechnology regulatory policies embodied in the Coordinated Framework. Therefore, 

imposing such a requirement for FG72 soybean would not meet APHIS’ purpose and need to 

respond appropriately to the petition in accordance with its regulatory authorities.
23

3.4 Comparison of Alternatives

Table 3 presents a summary of the potential impacts associated with selection of either of the 

alternatives evaluated in this EA. The impact assessment is presented in Section 4 of this EA.

Table 3. Summary of issues of potential impacts and consequences of alternatives.

Attribute/Measure Alternative A: No Action

Alternative B: Determination 

of Nonregulated Status

Meets Purpose and Need 

and Objectives No Yes

Unlikely to pose a plant 

pest risk

Satisfied through use of 

regulated field trials

Satisfied – risk assessment

(USDA-APHIS, 2012b)

Management Practices

Acreage and range of 

soybean production No No

Agronomic practices No No

Pesticide use No No

Organic soybean 

production No No

Environment

Soil quality No No

Water resources No No

Air quality No No

Climate change No No

Animal communities No No

Plant communities No No

Gene flow/weediness No No
24

Attribute/Measure Alternative A: No Action

Alternative B: Determination 

of Nonregulated Status

Soil microorganisms No No

Biodiversity No No

Human and Animal Health

Human/worker health No No

Livestock health/animal 

feed No No

Socioeconomic 

Domestic economic 

environment No No

 Trade economic 

 environment

 No No

Other Regulatory Approvals

U.S. Non-completed FDA 

consultation

Non-completed FDA 

consultation

Compliance with Other Laws

CWA, CAA, Eos Fully compliant Fully compliant
25

4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This analysis of potential environmental consequences addresses the potential impact to the 

human environment from the alternatives analyzed in this EA. Potential environmental impacts 

from the No Action Alternative and the Preferred Alternative for FG72 soybean are described in 

detail throughout this section. Certain aspects of this product and its cultivation would be no 

different between the alternatives: those instances are described below.

A cumulative effects analysis is also included for each resource area in Section 5. A cumulative 

impact may be an effect on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the 

proposed action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. 

Examples include breeding FG72 soybean with other events no longer subject to the regulatory

requirements of 7 CFR part 340 or the plant pest provisions of the Plant Protection Act. If there 

are no direct or indirect impacts identified for a resource area, then there can be no cumulative 

impacts.

4.1 Scope of Analysis

Under the No Action Alternative, FG72 soybean will remain subject to the regulatory

requirements of 7 CFR part 340 (Section 3.1); additionally, under the Preferred Alternative, 

FG72 soybean will no longer be subject to the regulatory requirements of 7 CFR part 340 or the 

plant pest provisions of the Plant Protection Act (Section 3.2). 

Potential environmental impacts from the No Action Alternative and the Preferred Alternative 

for FG72 soybean are described in detail throughout this section. An impact would be any 

change, positive or negative, from the existing (baseline) conditions of the affected environment 

(described for each resource area in Section 2.0). Impacts may be categorized as direct, indirect, 

or cumulative. A direct impact is an effect that results solely from a proposed action without 

intermediate steps or processes. Examples include soil disturbance, air emissions, and water use. 

An indirect impact may be an effect that is related to but removed from a proposed action by an 

intermediate step or process. Examples include surface water quality changes resulting from soil 

erosion due to increased tillage, and worker safety impacts resulting from an increase in 

herbicide use. 

Where it is not possible to quantify impacts, APHIS provides a qualitative assessment of 

potential impacts. Certain aspects of this product and its cultivation may be no different between 

the alternatives; those are described below. 

Although the Preferred Alternative would allow for new plantings of FG72 soybean to occur 

anywhere in the U.S., APHIS will primarily focus the environmental analysis to those areas that 

currently support soybean production. To determine areas of soybean production, APHIS used 

data from USDA-NASS and USDA-ERS.
26

4.2 Agricultural Production of Soybean

4.2.1 Acreage and Range of Soybean Production

No Action Alternative: Acreage and Range of Soybean Production

Continued domestic and international demand for soybean products, coupled with relatively high 

soybean commodity prices, is likely to continue increasing (USDA-ERS, 2010b, 2011c) under 

the No Action Alternative. In response, total U.S. soybean acreage is anticipated to 

incrementally increase from 76.6 million acres in 2010 to 79.5 million acres in 2020, based on 

soybean production trends and projections (USDA-ERS, 2011c). In order to accommodate this 

increase of U.S. soybean acreage in spite of a net decrease in available U.S. agricultural land 

(EIA, 2007), growers are likely to plant additional soybean acreage at the expense of other crops, 

such as cotton or hay (O'Brian, 2010; USDA-ERS, 2011e). The use of existing agricultural land 

in lieu of previously uncultivated land for additional soybean acreage is a necessary land-use 

decision, as soybean is profitably grown on high quality arable land, not land of lower 

productivity (EIA, 2007; USDA-NASS, 2011c).

Preferred Alternative: Acreage and Range of Soybean Production

A determination of a nonregulated status of FG72 soybean is unlikely to substantially expand 

soybean acreage beyond the projected increases (USDA-ERS, 2011c) described in the No Action 

Alternative for two major reasons. First, FG72 soybean is unlikely to disrupt the causal 

relationship between market forces and U.S. soybean acreage, which is ultimately affected by 

growing domestic and international demand for soybean commodity products, such as animal 

feed or industrial oils/plastics (USDA-ERS, 2010b, 2011c). Secondly, FG72 soybean is unlikely

to expand soybean acreage beyond projected values (USDA-ERS, 2011c) because it requires

similar management conditions as conventional soybean, does not present any absolute yield 

gains over conventional soybean varieties under typical management conditions, and exhibits no 

phenotype that would be indicative of an improved capacity to grow outside an agricultural 

environment (Bayer, 2011c; USDA-APHIS, 2012b). Similar to currently available soybean 

varieties, FG72 soybean will likely require cultivation on high quality arable land to produce a 

grower profit, precluding the use of lower quality, uncultivated land to supply additional soybean 

acreage. FG72 soybean is unlikely to be cultivated on land not previously used for agriculture, 

thus maintaining observed farm-level land-use decisions to shift agricultural land away from 

other crops, such as cotton or hay, toward soybean production to satisfy market demand (USDAERS, 2010e, 2011c).

4.2.2 Agronomic Practices

No Action Alternative: Tillage

The current trend of increasing conservation tillage adoption is unlikely to change under the No 

Action Alternative, due to the extensive market penetration of glyphosate-tolerant soybean 

varieties (Dill, 2005; Owen, 2010) and its relationship with conservation tillage practices 

(Bonny, 2011; Givens et al., 2009; USDA-ERS, 2010a). Conservation tillage adoption rates by

U.S. soybean growers are likely to be sustained by the continued use of glyphosate as a broad-
27

spectrum herbicide (Carpenter and Gianessi, 1999) that enable conservation tillage strategies to 

be undertaken as an economical alternative to conventional tillage (Givens et al., 2009; USDAERS, 2010a).

In the presence of glyphosate-resistant weeds, some U.S. soybean growers may reincorporate the 

use of conventional tillage practices to manage those problematic weed populations (NRC, 

2010). However, in spite of increasing concern with glyphosate-resistant weed populations, the 

majority of U.S. growers are likely to continue using glyphosate at increased rates/frequencies 

rather than reincorporate conventional tillage into their weed management strategies. This 

response is due to several reasons, though the most relevant include the substantial costs of 

conventional tillage (USDA-NRCS, 2011), grower familiarity with glyphosate (Johnson et al., 

2009; NRC, 2010; Owen et al., 2011), and the overall value placed on simplicity and 

convenience that is provided by glyphosate-tolerant systems (Owen, 2010). These reasons, 

coupled with the extent of glyphosate-resistant weeds in U.S. soybean fields (at least 3 percent of 

U.S. soybean acreage) (Owen, 2010), suggest that the continued use of conservation tillage is 

likely to continue as practiced under the No Action Alternative.

Preferred Alternative: Tillage

Effective broad-spectrum herbicide use is generally associated with the adoption of conservation 

tillage in U.S. soybean production practices (NRC, 2010). Similar to the No Action Alternative, 

FG72 soybean permits the continued use of an existing broad-spectrum herbicide (glyphosate) 

that contributed to the general use of conservation tillage in U.S. production fields; additionally, 

FG72 soybean will permit the use of another broad-spectrum herbicide, IFT. The presence of the 

glyphosate-tolerant phenotype in FG72 soybean will permit the continued use of glyphosate as it 

is used presently in conventional U.S. soybean production, maintaining current trends of 

conservation tillage (Bonny, 2011; Owen, 2010; Owen et al., 2011). Concurrently, FG72 

soybean will also permit the use of IFT, another effective broad-spectrum herbicide that will 

permit the continued use of conservation tillage in U.S. soybean production fields (Bayer, 2011a, 

2011b). Thus, there is no reason to suspect that a determination of nonregulated status of FG72 

soybean would alter the shift toward conservation tillage in soybean, as FG72 soybean will 

represent another herbicide-tolerant soybean variety that may facilitate the use of conservation 

tillage (AOSCA, 2011).

No Action Alternative: Fertilization and Crop Rotation

Compared to other crop plants, soybean cultivation requires less nitrogen fertilization. USDAERS estimates that less than 40 percent of soybean acres in the U.S. receive nitrogen fertilizer

(USDA-ERS, 2010d); this trend of percent soybean acreage treated with nitrogen fertilizer, along 

with application rates of nitrogen fertilizer, have remained relatively constant since 1992. Under 

the No Action Alternative, current trends related to fertilizer use in U.S. soybean production are 

not anticipated to substantially change.

According to USDA-ERS, 95 percent of the soybean-planted acreage has been in some form of a 

crop rotation system since 1991 (USDA-ERS, 2011b). Continuous (i.e., non-rotation) soybean 

production is discouraged by most extension soybean specialists to reduce the risk of diseases 

and nematodes (Al-Kaisi et al., 2003). In a survey of major corn/soybean production states, corn 
28

and soybean were alternated on 72 to 80 percent of acreage, other rotations were grown on 16 to 

20 percent of acreage, and soybean was grown continuously on 5 to 12 percent of acreage 

during the years 1996 – 2002 (Sandretto and Payne, 2006). Under the No Action Alternative, 

current trends related to soybean rotation are unlikely to substantially change.

Preferred Alternative: Fertilization and Crop Rotation

Similar to the No Action Alternative, a determination of nonregulated status of FG72 soybean is 

unlikely to substantially change fertilization patterns in U.S. soybean production. Standard 

agricultural practices are required for the cultivation of FG72 soybean, demonstrating that it 

requires typical quantities of nitrogen in the soil (Bayer, 2011c). In general, GE herbicide 

tolerant soybean varieties have not required more supplemental nitrogen fertilization compared 

to other soybean varieties, despite the increase in GE soybean variety adoption (Figure 8). 

Additionally, similar to the No Action Alternative, a determination of nonregulated status of 

FG72 soybean is unlikely to substantially change current patterns of soybean crop rotation 

because it exhibits similar agronomic performance relative to its nontransgenic parent variety, 

Jack (Bayer, 2011c). In particular, no differences in phytopathology were generally observed 

between FG72 and its nontransgenic parent variety (Jack) in experimental plots (USDA-APHIS, 

2012b). These similar measures of disease susceptibility suggest that FG72 soybean would 

benefit from currently-practiced soybean rotation strategies. Furthermore, cultivation of FG72 

soybean and potential corresponding IFT use may not restrict common corn/soybean rotation, as 

the rotation interval for corn following IFT use is 0 months (Bayer, 2011b). Due to this general 

benefit from crop rotational strategy on disease mitigation and an unlikely disruption with 

common soybean rotational crops, a determination of nonregulated status of FG72 soybean is 

likely to continue current patterns of rotation in U.S. soybean production.

Figure 8. Percent and application rate of nitrogen fertilization in U.S. soybean production, 1992 

– 2006. Source: USDA-ERS (2011f, 2011g).
29

No Action Alternative: Pesticide Use

Under the No Action Alternative, pesticide use in U.S. soybean fields will likely continue as it is 

currently practiced. Insecticide application in soybean, though variable between states, will 

likely continue to be restricted to a small percentage of soybean acres (USDA-NASS, 2002, 

2007), due in large part to the capacity of soybean to experience limited insect herbivory without 

a reciprocal loss in grain yield (Penn State Extension, 2011). 

With regard to weed management practices, U.S. soybean growers will continue to have access 

to herbicide-tolerant soybean varieties that are no longer subject to the regulatory requirements 

of 7 CFR part 340 or the plant pest provisions of the Plant Protection Act. U.S. soybean growers 

will likely continue utilizing herbicides, primarily in the form of glyphosate, as the basis of a 

weed management system due to the extensive adoption of glyphosate-tolerant soybean varieties 

(Carpenter and Gianessi, 1999; Fernandez-Cornejo and McBride, 2000) and grower preference 

for the familiarity and convenience of glyphosate-tolerant soybean systems (USDA-ERS, 

2011a). Since the introduction of glyphosate-tolerant soybean varieties, glyphosate application 

has increased at the expense of alternative herbicides, with respect to total pounds of active 

ingredient applied (Fernandez-Cornejo et al., 2009). This statement, however, should not be 

misinterpreted to mean that the diversity of herbicides available to U.S. soybean growers has 

decreased; rather, the diversity of herbicides used in U.S. soybean production fields has gradually 

increased while applied quantities of those same herbicides (except glyphosate) have generally 

decreased (NRC, 2010; USDA-NASS, 1996, 2002, 2007). 

The increasing frequency of glyphosate-resistant weeds in some soybean production fields may 

decrease the technical efficacy of glyphosate in controlling weeds. In spite of this, some U.S. 

soybean growers are hesitant to stop using glyphosate due to familiarity and comfort with the 

glyphosate-tolerant soybean system. For example, a survey of 400 corn, cotton, and soybean 

growers found that a majority would not restrict their use of glyphosate-tolerant crops [or 

glyphosate] when facing increased weed pressure from glyphosate-resistant weed populations 

(Scott and VanGessel, 2007). Similarly, Delaware soybean growers continued planting and 

cultivating glyphosate-tolerant soybean varieties in the presence of glyphosate-resistant 

horseweed (Scott and VanGessel, 2007). 

U.S. soybean growers, however, are beginning to understand that a diversification of selection 

pressure in their weed management strategies may be necessary to manage and slow glyphosateresistant weed development (Johnson et al., 2009; NRC, 2010; Owen et al., 2011). One general 

farm-level response to glyphosate-resistant weeds has been to increase the rate/frequency of 

glyphosate application and incorporate the use of different herbicidal chemistries (NRC, 2010). 

A possible consequence of this action may be an absolute increase in total herbicide use (lbs. 

ai/acre) in U.S. soybean production (NRC, 2010; Owen, 2010). It is prudent to mention, 

however, that total herbicide use may not be an effective metric to measure environmental 

impact, as this does not effectively permit the environmental comparison of different herbicides 

across time or across management strategies (Fernandez-Cornejo et al., 2009).
30

Preferred Alternative: Pesticide Use

General trends related to soybean pest management are unlikely to change under the Preferred 

Alternative. Insecticide application practices are likely to be similar between FG72 soybean and 

conventional soybean, as FG72 soybean is not more susceptible to insect herbivory than 

conventional soybean varieties (USDA-APHIS, 2012b). 

Herbicide use trends in U.S. soybean production are not anticipated to be substantially affected 

following a determination of nonregulated status of FG72 soybean. FG72 soybean is tolerant to 

both glyphosate and IFT. Accordingly, FG72 soybean may be integrated into current soybean 

pest management practices using glyphosate, thereby mitigating any impact on glyphosate-use 

trends. Additionally, while not previously used in soybean production, IFT represents another 

herbicide available to U.S. soybean growers. Despite a trend of glyphosate substitution in U.S. 

soybean production (NRC, 2010), diversity of used herbicides has increased since 1995 (USDANASS, 1996, 2002, 2007). The potential use of IFT on FG72 soybean does not represent a shift 

from this herbicide diversity trend. 

The use of IFT in U.S. soybean production may increase under the Preferred Alternative. This is 

an expected outcome, as IFT was not previously utilized in U.S. soybean production (EPA, 

2011d). The extent of IFT use in U.S. soybean production, however, may not substantially

increase total pesticide application (lbs. a.i./acre) for several reasons. First, IFT is classified as a 

restricted use pesticide (EPA, 2011b). IFT may only be applied by a certified applicator or under 

the direct supervision of a certified applicator in specific agroenvironments and a certain number 

of states, thus potentially precluding its common and widespread use (EPA, 2012b). Second, as 

a pre-emergent/early post-emergent herbicide, IFT application is restricted to a short application 

timeframe in the beginning of a soybean growing season. This limited application window, 

coupled with restrictions on annual use (no more than one application per growing season, 

Appendix A) and reduced application rates relative to other common soybean herbicides (Table 

4), suggests that IFT may not substantially increase total pesticide use beyond the current 

projections stated in the No Action Alternative. 

Lastly, current use of IFT in field corn suggests that use in soybean may not be substantial. IFT 

has not been widely used in field corn since commercial introduction in 1999 (Table 5). In 2010, 

IFT use in field corn totaled 399,000 lbs.; this value was much less than total glyphosate use 

(57,536,000 lbs.) and represented only 0.11 percent of total herbicide use in corn that same year 

(USDA-NASS, 2011a). Contributing to this relatively low application in corn is the application 

rate of IFT; in contrast to other corn herbicides, such as atrazine (0.9 – 1.8 kg/ha) and metochlor 

(0.7 – 1.4 kg/ha), IFT is typically applied at the rate of 0.05 – 0.11 kg/ha (Ramanarayanan et al., 

2005). 

As described in the No Action Alternative, total herbicide use may increase in U.S. soybean 

production due to farm-level response to glyphosate-resistant weeds (NRC, 2010). A 

determination of nonregulated status of FG72 soybean would likely contribute to this trend, as it 

would facilitate the use of an herbicide not previously used in U.S. soybean production. 

However, the contribution of IFT to soybean total herbicide use (lbs. a.i./acre) is likely to be 

small, due to its use restrictions and reduced application rates (single and annual rate) relative to 

other common soybean herbicides.
31

Table 4. Maximum soybean herbicide application rates (single and annual application).

Herbicide Active Ingredient Rate/Application (lbs./acre) Rate/Crop Year (lbs./acre)

2,4-D, 2-EHE 0.493 0.503

2,4-D, BEE 0.426 0.459

2,4-D, dimeth. salt 0.462 0.475

Acifluorfen, sodium 0.287 0.296

Alachlor 1.931 1.931

Bentazon 0.687 0.687

Carfentrazone-ethyl 0.038 0.046

Chlorimuron-ethyl 0.017 0.017

Clethodim 0.096 0.102

Cloransulam-methyl 0.019 0.019

Dicamba, digly salt 0.25 0.25

Fenoxaprop 0.031 0.031

Fluazifop-P-butyl 0.099 0.099

Flufenacet 0.265 0.265

Flumetsulam 0.048 0.048

Flumiclorac-pentyl 0.02 0.028

Flumioxazin 0.066 0.066

Fomesafen 0.19 0.233

Glyphosate 0.63 1.044

Glyphosate amm. salt 0.489 0.745

Glyphosate iso. salt 0.802 1.33

Imazamox 0.03 0.03

Imazaquin 0.061 0.062

Imazethapyr 0.053 0.053

Imazethapyr, ammon 0.048 0.048

Isoxaflutole (IFT) 0.07 0.07

Lactofen 0.11 0.11

Metribuzin 0.255 0.26

Paraquat 0.492 0.511

Pendimethalin 0.92 0.926

Quizalofop-P-ethyl 0.038 0.041

S-Metolachlor 1.023 1.023

Sethoxydim 0.153 0.153

Sulfentrazone 0.087 0.091

Sulfosate 0.967 1.701

Thifensulfuron 0.004 0.004

Tribenuron-methyl 0.008 0.008

Trifluralin 0.818 0.818

Source: USDA-NASS (2002, 2007).
32

Table 5. Use of glyphosate and isoxaflutole (IFT) in U.S. corn production, 2000 – 2010.

Year Glyphosate 

application in corn 

- Measured in 

total lbs. 

Average 

glyphosate 

application in corn 

- Measured in total 

lbs./acre

Isoxaflutole 

application in corn 

- Measured in 

total lbs. 

Average 

isoxaflutole 

application in corn 

- Measured in total 

lbs./acre

2010 57,536,000 0.82 399,000 0.07

2005 22,967,000 0.73 233,000 0.05

2003 11,913,000 0.69 321,000 0.06

2002 3,307,000 0.64 331,000 0.07

2001 6,868,000 0.66 439,000 0.07

2000 4,438,000 0.59 171,000 0.07

Source: USDA-NASS (2011a).

4.2.3 Organic Soybean Production

No Action Alternative: Organic Soybean Production

Current availability, market demand, and acreage of organic soybean are anticipated to remain 

unchanged under the No Action Alternative. Similar to market trends for other U.S. organic 

products, demand of organic soybean is likely to increase (USDA-ERS, 2007). Despite this 

increasing demand, however, the share of U.S. organic soybean production remains relatively 

small and steady. While this flat production of U.S. organic soybean correlates with an increase 

in GE soybean adoption, there is little or no evidence to suggest a cause-and-effect relationship. 

An alternative explanation is that U.S. organic soybean acreage remains limited because of 

unrelated reasons, such as: 1) the three-year period transition period between conventional and 

organic farming; 2) a lack of contractors for organic agronomic practices, including pest and 

nutrient management; 3) intensive labor requirements; 4) fear of criticism from neighbors; 5) An 

absence of government infrastructure and policy support; and 6) unknown risks (Clarkson, 2007; 

USDA-ERS, 2007). 

From 2005 - 2008, total organic soybean acreage ranged between 122,000 and 126,000 acres 

(USDA-ERS, 2010c). This represented less than 0.2 percent of the total U.S. soybean acreage for 

this period and is not anticipated to substantially change in spite of rising domestic demand, due 

in part to increasing competition and imports from international organic soybean producers 

(USDA-ERS, 2007). Therefore, domestic demand for organic soybean and organic soybean 

products appear to be sustained by increasing imports from international organic soybean 

producers (The Organic & Non-GMO Report, 2007; USDA-ERS, 2007).

Preferred Alternative: Organic Soybean Production

It is not likely that organic farmers will be substantially affected by a determination of 

nonregulated status of FG72 soybean. Soybean is primarily a self-pollinated plant (OECD, 

2010), and there is no reason to suspect that the biology of FG72 soybean will increase its 

potential to outcross with soybean varieties utilized in organic soybean production (USDA-
33

APHIS, 2012b). Field study of FG72 soybean reproductive biology revealed no substantial 

differences in factors influencing reproductive potential, including pollen viability, date of 

emergence, date of 50 percent flowering, and date of maturity (Bayer, 2011c). 

It is important to note that the current NOP regulations do not specify an acceptable threshold 

level for the adventitious presence of GE materials in an product labeled organic (USDA-ERS, 

2010c). The unintentional presence of the products of excluded methods will not affect the 

status of an organic product or operation when the operation has not used excluded methods and 

has taken reasonable steps to avoid contact with the products of excluded methods (Ronald and 

Fouche, 2006; USDA-AMS, 2010b). However, certain markets or contracts may have defined 

thresholds (Non-GMO-Project, 2010).

A determination of nonregulated status of FG72 soybean is unlikely to substantially affect U.S. 

organic soybean market conditions. In contrast to other U.S. organic crops, U.S. organic 

soybean production has not kept pace with demand (USDA-ERS, 2010c). Domestic production 

of organic soybean has not kept pace with demand due to the reasons outlined in the previous No 

Action Alternative section. The increased demand for organic soybean in the U.S. has generally

been met by increasing imports from international organic soybean producers (The Organic & 

Non-GMO Report, 2007; USDA-ERS, 2007).

4.3 Physical Environment

4.3.1 Soil Quality

No Action Alternative: Soil Quality

Soil quality in the agroenvironment is influenced by a variety of agronomic practices, including 

the crop cultivated and its associated management practices. In particular, tillage is strongly

correlated with soil quality (NRC, 2010). As discussed in Section 4.2.2, conservation tillage in 

U.S. soybean is generally associated with 30 percent or greater remaining plant residue and 

reduced soil erosion and compaction. The use of conservation tillage in U.S. soybean production 

has increased and is not expected to change under the No Action Alternative, an effect attributed 

to the glyphosate-tolerant soybean system. Consequently, because of the strong relationship 

between conservation tillage and soil quality (Holland, 2004), soil quality in soybean fields is not 

anticipated to substantially change under the No Action Alternative.

Soil quality may also be affected by the addition of pesticides. Under the No Action Alternative, 

insecticide use will remain as it is currently practiced and limited to a small percentage of total 

U.S. soybean acreage (USDA-NASS, 2007). Additionally, glyphosate is anticipated to remain 

the most widely-applied herbicide in U.S. soybean production, continuing the current trend.

Preferred Alternative: Soil Quality

Soil quality in U.S. soybean production fields is unlikely to be substantially affected under the 

Preferred Alternative. The increasing adoption of conservation tillage has been partially enabled 

by the capacity to apply a broad-spectrum herbicide [glyphosate] over a tolerant variety 

[glyphosate-tolerant soybean]. FG72 soybean is tolerant to glyphosate and IFT, both broad-
34

spectrum herbicides. Thus, conservation tillage trends, and its direct effects on soil quality, are 

unlikely to deviate as currently practiced. 

A consequence of conservation tillage is the incorporation of plant material from the preceding 

crop into the soil (CTIC, 2008). Consequently, any changes in remaining plant tissue from 

previous growth may affect soil quality. However, FG72 soybean plant material is unlikely to 

substantially affect soil quality, as compositional analysis of FG72 soybean tissue demonstrates 

that it is not substantially different from its non-GE parent variety, Jack (Bayer, 2011c; USDAAPHIS, 2012b). 

Under the Preferred Alternative, glyphosate and IFT may be applied to the soil during FG72 

cultivation. Glyphosate use has been reviewed in previous APHIS documents and is not 

anticipated to negatively affect soil quality, when it is used in accordance with the EPA restricted 

use label (USDA-APHIS, 2012a). IFT, at present, has been primarily applied on field corn. As 

described in Appendix A, IFT yields a DKN and benzoic acid derivative through biotic or abiotic 

processes. IFT itself is not likely to substantially affect soil quality, as degradation of IFT is 

generally rapid, resulting in a half-life of only 0.5 – 13.9 days across a variety of soil types 

(Beltrán et al., 2002; EPA, 2011b; Papiernik et al., 2007). Furthermore, the estimated half-life of 

DKN is 61 days, facilitated by aerobic soil metabolism (EPA, 1998). DKN is the bioactive 

principle of IFT, and thus, may be responsible for non-target plant injury that may result from 

growth on the treated soil. However, EPA label use restrictions on IFT formulations places 

minimum limits on when another crop may be planted following IFT application. These 

intervals, ranging from 4-18 months, exceed the half-life of DKN and are designed to mitigate 

any incidental plant injury from the soil (Bayer, 2011b). As a consequence of its registration of 

IFT, EPA has effectively determined that there is no unreasonable environmental risk if the end 

user adheres to the label use restrictions when applying IFT herbicide formulations.

4.3.2 Water Resources

No Action Alternative: Water Resources

Under the No Action Alternative, water resources associated with soybean production is not 

likely to be substantially affected. Herbicide-tolerant soybeans, cultivated on 93 percent of 

soybean acreage, have resulted in the adoption of increased conservation practices (NRC, 2010; 

USDA-ERS, 2011a). These conservation practices, including reduced tillage and precision 

agriculture, play a major role in water conservation and maintaining water quality by minimizing 

soil erosion (USDA-NRCS, 2006). As discussed previously, conservation tillage trends are not 

expected to change in U.S. soybean production from what is currently practiced; accordingly, the 

impacts of conservation tillage on water resources are also expected to not change.

Preferred Alternative: Water Resources

Cultivation of FG72 soybean is likely to permit the continued use of conservation tillage as it is 

currently practiced, and its effects on water resources through the mitigation of water loss and 

runoff attributes, is not expected to be substantially different from the No Action Alternative. 

The agronomic performance of FG72 soybean is similar to that of its non-transgenic parent 

variety, Jack. This implies that FG72 soybean does not require more moisture. Therefore, its 
35

irrigation requirements will not differ substantially from that of soybean varieties that are 

commercially available (Bayer, 2011c; USDA-APHIS, 2012b).

Under the Preferred Alternative, glyphosate and IFT may be applied on FG72 soybean. 

Glyphosate is applied to most U.S. soybean acreage (Dill, 2005); it will likely be applied to 

FG72 soybean following a determination of nonregulated status. Glyphosate use has been 

reviewed in previous APHIS documents and is not anticipated to negatively affect water 

resources when it is used in accordance with the EPA restricted use label (USDA-APHIS, 

2012a). With regard to IFT application, degradation occurs rapidly in both soil and aqueous 

environments (Beltrán et al., 2002; Rice et al., 2004; Taylor-Lovell et al., 2002). Thus, IFT is 

not expected to persist in groundwater (aquifers) or surface water (DATCP, 2002; EPA, 2001a), 

with detection only occurring shortly after field application (Scribner et al., 2006). 

DKN, the bioactive principle of IFT, is relatively stable and more mobile in the aqueous phase 

than parent IFT (EPA, 2011d). Laboratory and tile-drain studies demonstrated the relative 

stability of DKN in aqueous environments and suggested that it may persist in surface water 

(DATCP, 2002; EPA, 2011d). Detection of DKN in surface water resources surrounding 

midwestern corn fields further demonstrated the persistence and mobility of DKN under field 

conditions (EPA, 2001a, 2002; Rector et al., 2003; Scribner et al., 2006). 

Presence of a metabolite in a water resource does not, in itself, represent a negative impact. 

More relevant is the plausibility and magnitude of an impact. Phytotoxicity risks to non-target 

terrestrial plants due to the presence of DKN in field runoff and surrounding surface water 

precipitated the characterization of IFT as a restricted use pesticide by the EPA (EPA, 2011b). 

Risk to aquatic plants, birds, mammals, invertebrates, and fish from IFT and DKN were 

determined to be below the EPA level of concern, suggesting that the toxicity of IFT and DKN is 

relatively low (EPA, 2011b) (Appendix A). Relative to other herbicides applied to U.S. soybean 

fields, IFT and its degradates fall within the range of environmental impact quotient (EIQ) for 

several parameters related to water resources, such as leaching potential, and effects on fish, 

birds, beneficial organisms, and ecology (Table 6). Indeed, when compared to other herbicides 

applied on soybean, IFT appears to possess an average leaching potential (Table 6). As a 

consequence of its registration of IFT, EPA has effectively determined that there is no 

unreasonable environmental risk if the end user adheres to the label use restrictions when 

applying IFT herbicide formulations. EPA label directions include application restrictions plus 

requirement for a certified applicator to minimize effects on nearby environments. IFT is 

currently undergoing a registration review by EPA (EPA, 2011b). If EPA determines that 

additional restrictions beyond current restrictions (Appendix A) on IFT use are required to 

mitigate environmental risk to non-target plant communities, then it is expected that EPA would

amend IFT use labels accordingly.
36

Table 6. Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ) of soybean herbicides with respect to several 

factors related to water resources. Highlighted rows indicate an herbicide that was applied on a 

percentage of soybean acres greater than 5 percent in 2006. Isoxaflutole is generally not applied 

on soybean.

Active ingredient 

EIQ 

Review 

date Leaching Fish Birds Beneficials Ecology

2,4-D, 2-EHE April-04 1 5 6 15 35

2,4-D, dimethyl salt April-04 5.00 1.00 6.00 15.00 31.00

Chlorimuron-ethyl April-04 5.00 3.00 6.00 24.60 42.60

Clethodim Dec-00 5.00 1.00 6.00 15.00 31.00

Cloransulam-methyl Jan-03 3.00 3.00 6.00 15.00 33.00

Fluazifop-P-butyl Mar-09 1.00 15.00 4.65 21.00 72.15

Flumiclorac-pentyl Mar-09 5.00 3.00 9.00 25.20 46.20

Flumioxazin Dec-05 2.10 10.20 6.00 24.60 49.80

Fomesafen Mar-09 5.00 1.00 7.65 17.64 32.59

Glyphosate amm. Salt April-08 1 5 6 15 35

Imazaquin Mar-09 5.00 1.00 3.00 25.00 32.00

Imazethapyr Mar-09 5.00 1.00 7.65 17.54 32.49

Metribuzin Apr-03 5.00 1.00 27.00 32.10 69.10

Paraquat Mar-09 1.00 5.00 10.65 13.97 35.92

Pendimethalin Mar-08 1.00 25.00 9.00 30.00 73.00

S-Metoachlor Jan-03 3.00 9.00 12.00 15.00 45.00

Sulfentrazone Jan-04 5.00 1.00 9.00 8.20 21.20

Sulfosate Mar-01 3.00 3.00 9.00 45.00 66.00

Tribenuron-methyl Apr-04 3.10 3.40 6.00 15.00 33.40

Trifluralin Apr-08 1.00 25.00 9.00 5.00 42.00

Isoxaflutole Jan-04 3.00 9.00 6.00 15.00 39.00

Sources: NY State IPM Program (2012b) and USDA-NASS (2007). 

4.3.3 Air Quality

No Action Alternative: Air Quality

All agricultural practices have the potential to cause negative impacts to air quality. Agricultural 

emission sources include smoke from machinery, pesticide drift from spraying, GHG emissions, 

and particulate matter (EPA, 2010d; USDA-NRCS, 2006). Under the No Action Alternative, 

current impacts to air quality associated with soybean acreage and cultivation practices 

would not be affected. Agronomic practices associated with conventional soybean 

production that contribute to air quality and GHG emissions, including tillage, cultivation, 
37

irrigation, pesticide application, fertilizer applications and use of agriculture equipment, 

would not be expected to change.

Preferred Alternative: Air Quality

As previously discussed in Section 4.2, the majority of agronomic practices (with the exception 

of IFT use) commonly utilized in conventional soybean production are not likely to be 

substantially different between FG72 and conventional soybean. Accordingly, a determination 

of a nonregulated status of FG72 soybean is unlikely to change the use of agricultural practices 

with the potential to affect air quality from what is currently practiced. In particular, the 

adoption of conservation tillage is generally increasing in conventional soybean production, 

partially enabled by the use of effective, non-selective herbicides such as glyphosate. Under the 

Preferred Alternative, FG72 soybean would also permit the use of two non-selective herbicides 

(glyphosate and IFT) that may facilitate conservation tillage. Thus, the effects of tillage on air 

quality conservation tillage trends would be maintained and not deviate substantially as it is 

currently practiced in typical soybean production practices.

4.3.4 Climate Change

No Action Alternative: Climate Change

Under the No Action Alternative, current impacts on climate change associated with soybean 

production would not be affected. Agronomic practices associated with soybean production 

such as tillage, cultivation, irrigation, pesticide application, fertilizer applications and use of 

agriculture equipment would continue on soybeans grown throughout the region.

FG72 soybean use would be limited to areas APHIS has approved it for regulated releases under 

the No Action Alternative. Agronomic management practices and phenotypic characteristics 

regarding FG72 soybean are similar to those of conventional soybean, so impact from soybean

varieties would be minimal. Measurable effects from these confined field releases would also be 

minor because of the small scale of management and acreage relative to current soybean

production in the U.S.

Preferred Alternative: Climate Change

As described in Section 4.2.1, the range and area of U.S. soybean production is not likely to 

expand under the Preferred Alternative. As described in the Bayer petition (Bayer, 2011c) and 

USDA-APHIS PPRA (USDA-APHIS, 2012b), FG72 soybean requires management strategies 

similar to that for conventional soybean production, thus precluding changes in agricultural 

activities that may affect climate change, such as machine usage and tillage. Collectively, 

because the range, area, and agronomic practices of soybean are unlikely to change following a 

determination of nonregulated status of FG72 soybean, the agricultural impacts of soybean 

cultivation are also unlikely to change under the Preferred Alternative.

While agricultural activities may affect climate change, the converse is also true; climate change 

may affect agriculture. For example, climate change may result in shifts of herbivorous insects 

to higher latitudes. There is evidence that insect diversity and vegetative consumption intensity

increase with increasing temperature at the same latitude in the fossil record (Bale et al., 2002). 
38

How climate change will affect individual species of pest insects will depend on their 

physiology, feeding behavior, and overwintering strategies (Bale et al., 2002). In cases where 

climate change favors the expansion of the range of soybean pests, additional soybean acres may

be treated with insecticides. FG72 soybean is not any more susceptible to insect herbivory than 

conventional soybean varieties (USDA-APHIS, 2012b), so change in insect pressure resulting 

from climate change is likely to impact FG72 soybean just as it would conventional soybean.

4.4 Biological Resources

4.4.1 Animal Communities

No Action Alternative: Animal Communities

Soybean production fields may be host to many animal and insect species. Mammals and birds 

may use soybean fields and the surrounding vegetation for food and habitat throughout the year. 

Invertebrates can feed on soybean plants or prey upon other insects living on soybean plants as 

well as in the vegetation surrounding soybean fields. 

Under the No Action Alternative, conventional soybean production would continue while FG72 

soybean remains a regulated article. Potential impacts of GE and non-GE soybean production 

practices on non-target animals would be unchanged. 

Preferred Alternative: Animal Communities

As described in Chapter 4.2, land use and agricultural production of FG72 soybean under the 

Preferred Alternative is likely to continue as currently practiced. Consequently, any impact to 

animal communities as a result of soybean production practices under the Preferred Alternative 

is likely to be similar to the No Action Alternative.

Consumption of FG72 soybean is unlikely to substantially affect non-target organisms, such as 

animals, birds, or insects. 2mEPSPS has been previously analyzed and approved by several 

international regulatory agencies, demonstrating that it is not likely to have any significant 

impact on animal health (CFIA, 1998; FSANZ, 2001; SCF, 2002; USDA-APHIS, 1997). 

Though HPPD W336 has not previously been evaluated, there is no reason to suspect it would 

present a risk to non-target organisms. HPPD proteins are ubiquitous in the environment and are

not novel. Bioinformatic analysis of HPPD W336 showed no significant lengthwise alignment 

with known toxins or allergens (Bayer, 2011c). Additionally, compositional analysis of FG72 

soybean proximate and fiber components, amino acid and fatty acid content, and antinutrients 

and isoflavone concentrations revealed no substantial differences between it and conventional 

soybean varieties (Bayer, 2011c). 

Non-target organisms may be exposed to glyphosate and IFT under the Preferred Alternative. 

The majority of U.S. soybean acreage is already subject to glyphosate application (USDANASS, 2007); consequently, exposure to glyphosate through the cultivation of FG72 soybean is 

not likely to increase non-target organism exposure to glyphosate. Based on information 

provided in existing APHIS EAs (USDA-APHIS, 2012a), exposure to glyphosate by non-target 

organisms is expected to be similar to the No Action Alternative. The potential impact of IFT on 

non-target organisms has been evaluated by the EPA (EPA, 2011b, 2011d). In summary, 
39

following three separate ecological risk assessments, EPA concluded that the level of concern for 

acute and chronic risks for birds, mammals, and fish was not exceeded as a result of IFT 

application (Tables A3-A4, Appendix A). On an acute contact an oral basis, IFT was determined 

to be practically non-toxic to honey bees (Apis mellifera) (Table 7) (EPA, 2011d). Mysid shrimp 

(Mysidopsis bahia), an estuarine invertebrate species, was found to be highly sensitive to IFT 

(LC50 = 0.018) (Table 8) (DATCP, 2002); however, given the rapid decay of parent IFT to DKN 

and the decreased sensitivity of M. bahia to DKN (LC50 = 3.6) (EPA, 2011d), this may be less of 

an issue in field conditions. As a result of these conclusions, it is unlikely that IFT would pose a 

risk to animal communities under the Preferred Alternative.

Table 7. Summary of the most sensitive endpoints from submitted terrestrial toxicity studies for 

isoxaflutole (IFT).

Taxa 

represented

Species 

(common name)

Toxicity value Comments

Birds, 

terrestrialBobwhite quail LD50 > 2150 mg/kg-bw

phase (Colinus 

virginianus)

LD50 > 4255 mg/kgfood No observed mortalities at

amphibians Mallard duck LD50 > 2150 mg/kg-bw highest treatment level.

and reptiles (Anas 

platyrhynchos)

LD50 > 4255 mg/kgfood

LD50 > 5000 mg/kg-bw Acute inhalation LC50 > 

5.23

Terrestrial Laboratory rat mg/L.

mammals 

(Rattus 

norvegicus)

NOAEC = 17.4 mg 

a.i./kgValues based on exposure 

to 

food males; LOAEC = 414 

mg/kg-food based on 

decreased body weight in 

parents and offspring.

Terrestrial 

invertebrates

Honey bee 

(Apis mellifera)

LD50 > 5000 mg/kg-bw

No observed mortalities at 

highest treatment level. 

Oral LD50 > 168.7 ug/bee.

Source: EPA (2011d).

Table 8. Summary of the most sensitive endpoints for submitted aquatic toxicity studies for 

isoxaflutole (IFT).

Taxa 

represented

Species 

(common 

name)

Toxicity 

value (mg 

a.i./L)

Comments

Freshwater 

fish and 

aquaticRainbow trout(Oncorhychus

96-hr LC50 > 1.7

No observed mortalities at highest treatment 

level. 1.7 ppm represents maximum water 

solubility obtainable under test conditions. 
40

Taxa 

represented

Species 

(common 

name)

Toxicity 

value (mg 

a.i./L)

Comments

phase 

amphibians

mykiss)

NOAEC = 0.096

No toxicity data are available for this taxa. 

NOAEC derived using ACR for mysid shrimp 

(17.8) and acute toxicity value for rainbow 

trout.

Freshwater Water flea

48-hr LC50 > 1.5

No observed immobility at highest treatment 

level. 1.5 ppm represents maximum water 

solubility obtainable under test conditions. 

invertebrates (Daphnia magna)

NOAEC = 0.087

No toxicity data are available for this taxa. 

NOAEC derived using ACR for mysid shrimp 

(17.8) and acute toxicity value for water flea.

Estuarine/

Marine fish

Sheepshead 

minnow

(Cyprinodon 

variegates)

96-hr LC50 > 6.4

No observed immobility at highest treatment 

level. 6.4 ppm represents maximum water 

solubility obtainable under test conditions. 

NOAEC = 0.36

No toxicity data are available for this taxa. 

NOAEC derived using ACR for mysid shrimp 

(17.8) and acute toxicity value for sheepshead 

minnow.

Estuarine/ Mysid shrimp

96-hr LC50 > 

0.0178

Slope = 2.9.

Marine 

invertebrates

(Mysidopsis 

bahia)

NOAEC = 0.001

LOAEC = 0.0019 based on effects to survival.

Source: EPA (2011d).

4.4.2 Plant Communities

No Action Alternative: Plant Communities

One of the highest priorities in soybean production is weed management (Hoeft et al., 2000). 

Weeds compete with soybean for water, soil nutrients and light, and may ultimately reduce yield. 

Growers use cultural methods, cultivation and herbicides to control crop competitors, and,

depending on the strategies chosen, different herbaceous annuals, perennials, or even woody 

species can become established (Hoeft et al., 2000). Weeds present during an entire growing 

season can result in soybean yield losses ranging from 12 to 80 percent (Barrentine, 1989).

Weed species that typically inhabit soybean production systems will continue to be managed 

through the use of mechanical, cultural, and chemical control methods, including the use of 

glyphosate and other registered herbicides. The majority of U.S. soybean acres will 

continue to be subject to herbicide application. No changes to cultivation practices are 

expected under the No Action Alternative.

Preferred Alternative: Plant Communities
41

Under the Preferred Alternative, FG72 soybean is not expected to affect plant communities due 

to toxicity or allergenicity of the transgene proteins. Both introduced proteins, 2mEPSPS and 

HPPD W336, are not derived from organisms that are known for pathogenic or toxic effects on 

plants; these traits themselves are effectively benign in the environment (Bayer, 2011c). There 

are no compatible wild relatives of soybean in the U.S. (OECD, 2010), so there will be no impact 

on the wild genetic resources of soybean following a determination a nonregulated status of 

FG72 soybean. Furthermore, FG72 soybean does not display or possess any weedy

characteristics, and thus, is not expected to behave as a weed (USDA-APHIS, 2012b).

FG72 soybean will permit the continued use of glyphosate on soybean, as described in Section 

4.2.2. Thus, any impact of glyphosate use on the plant community will be the same as the No 

Action Alternative. Based on information provided in existing APHIS EAs (USDA-APHIS, 

2012a), the impacts on the plant community in soybean from glyphosate is expected to be similar 

to the No Action Alternative.

As described in Section 4.2.2, FG72 soybean may also facilitate the increased use of IFT in U.S. 

soybean production. IFT, through its degradation to DKN, functions as a nonselective herbicide. 

Therefore, both non-target plant and weed species may experience high levels of toxicity

following exposure to IFT. Possible routes of exposure include direct exposure in the 

agricultural field and runoff. Soybean weed species are the most likely to be exposed to IFT 

through direct application. As a nonselective herbicide, IFT can be expected to control a wide 

variety soybean weed species (Table 9). Direct exposure of weeds to IFT under the Preferred 

Alternative is not anticipated to be substantially different than direct exposure of weeds to 

alternative herbicides under the No Action Alternative, as IFT represents yet another herbicide in 

a growing diversity of herbicides utilized in soybean production (Section 4.2.2).

Table 9. Control of common broadleaf and grassy weeds by isoxaflutole (IFT) (Balance® Pro). 

C = controlled; S = suppression; and N = not controlled or suppressed.

Broadleaf Weeds Grassy Weeds

Palmer amaranth - C Hairy nightshade - C Barnyardgrass - C

Buffalobur - C Field pennycress - C Large crabgrass - C

Burcucumber - S Broadleaf plantain - C Smooth crabgras - C

Carpetweed - N Prostrate pigweed - C Wooly cupgrass - C

Chamomile spp. - C Redroot pigweed - C Bristly foxtail - C

Common chickweed - C Smooth pigweed - C Giant foxtail - C

Cocklebur - N Common purslane - C Green foxtail - C

Dandelion- C Wild radish - C Robust purple foxtail - C

Galinsoga - C Common ragweed - C Robust white foxtail - C

Henbit - S Giant ragweed - S Yellow foxtail - C

Jimsonweed - C Russian thistle - C Goosegrass - C

Kochia - C Shepherds purse - C Johnsongrass, seedling - C

Lambsquater - C Pennsylvania smartweed - C Fall panicum - C
42

Broadleaf Weeds Grassy Weeds

Venice mallow - C Toothed spurge - C Texas panicum - C

Marestail - C Wild sunflower - N Wild proso millet - C

Annual morning glory - C Velvetleaf - C Field sandbur - S

Wild mustard - C Common waterhemp - C Shattercane - S

Black nightshade - C Tall waterhemp - C Broadleaf signalgrass - C

Eastern black nightshade - C Witchgrass - N

Adapted from DATCP (2002).

As described in Section 4.3.2, runoff may pose an environmental risk to non-target plants (EPA, 

2011d). However, as a consequence of its registration, EPA has determined that there is no 

unreasonable environmental risk if the end user adheres to the label use restrictions when 

applying IFT herbicide formulations. EPA label directions include application restrictions plus 

requirement for a certified applicator to minimize effects on nearby environments(Bayer, 2011a, 

2011b). Violators of the regulations are liable for all negative consequences of their actions. 

This serves as an added incentive to farmers who use restricted use pesticides, so they are more 

likely to carefully follow its label restrictions. Given that the leaching potential of IFT is not 

substantially higher than many currently-registered soybean herbicides (Table 6), it is unlikely

that IFT poses any more of a risk to non-target plants than the herbicides that would otherwise be 

utilized under the No Action Alternative. IFT is currently undergoing a registration review by 

EPA (EPA, 2011b). If EPA determines that additional restrictions beyond current restrictions 

(Appendix A) on IFT use are required to mitigate environmental risk to non-target plant 

communities, then it is expected that EPA would amend IFT use labels accordingly.

Weed populations can change in response to multiple agricultural management decisions, 

including those related to herbicide application. At present, nine glyphosate-resistant weeds 

have been identified in soybean fields (Figure 5), inhabiting approximately two million acres of 

farmland in the U.S. (Hubbard, 2008). As described in Section 4.2.2, FG72 soybean may

facilitate the use of IFT in U.S. soybean production. Following a determination of nonregulated 

status of FG72 soybean, IFT application may be utilized to control glyphosate-resistant weeds in 

U.S. soybean fields. Possessing an alternative MoA, IFT is expected to control glyphosateresistant weeds. Of the nine glyphosate-resistant weeds found in U.S. soybean fields, horseweed, 

Palmer amaranth, common waterhemp, common ragweed, johnsongrass, goosegrass, and kochia 

are controlled by IFT (Table 10). Control of the remaining glyphosate-resistant weeds 

potentially found in soybean fields, such as giant ragweed or Italian ryegrass, may be controlled

by alternative herbicide use alone or in conjunction with IFT. 

Table 10. Control of glyphosate-resistant broadleaf and grassy weeds found in soybean by

isoxaflutole (IFT) (Balance®Pro). C = controlled; S = suppression; and N/T = not determined.

Broadleaf Weeds Grassy Weeds

Horseweed (Marestail) (Conyza candensis) - C Goosegrass (Eleusine indica) - C
43

Broadleaf Weeds Grassy Weeds

Kochia (Kochia scoparia) - C

Italian Ryegrass 

(Lolium spp. multiflorum) - N/A

Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) - C Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) - C

Ragweed, Common (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) - C

Ragweed, Giant (Ambrosia trifida) - S

Waterhemp, Common 

(Amaranthus tuberculatus) - C

Adapted from DATCP (2002).

Since 2009, four populations of common waterhemp in Illinois, Iowa, and Nebraska corn fields 

were reported to be resistant to 4-HPPD inhibitors (Heap, 2011b). While three of these biotypes 

were resistant to the triketone family of 4-HPPD inhibitors, cross-family resistance to IFT may

be possible. One example of this was found in 2011 in a common waterhemp biotype from Iowa 

that displayed cross-family resistance to triketone-based 4-HPPD inhibitors as well as IFT 

(Heap, 2011b). The conditions leading to the advent of at least one of these reported cases is not 

likely to be common in FG72 soybean fields. In the Illinois biotype found in 2009, an absence of 

crop and herbicide rotation in the corn seed production field contributed to the development of 4-

HPPD resistance (Hausman et al., 2011). Unlike seed corn production fields, however, the 

majority of soybean production fields are rotated with another crop (USDA-ERS, 2011b). FG72 

soybean fields are not anticipated to be any different. Under the Preferred Alternative, FG72 

soybean will permit the pre-emergent use of both glyphosate and IFT; pre-emergent use of an 

herbicide was sufficient to control this population of 4-HPPD resistant waterhemp (Syngenta, 

2010).

4.4.3 Gene Flow and Weediness

No Action Alternative: Gene Flow and Weediness

Soybean is a self-pollinated species, propagated by seed (OECD, 2010). Pollination typically

takes place on the day the flower opens. The soybean stigma is receptive to pollen approximately

24 hours before anthesis and remains receptive for 48 hours after anthesis. Anthesis normally

occurs in late morning, depending on the environmental conditions. The pollen usually remains 

viable for two to four hours, and no viable pollen can be detected by late afternoon. Natural or 

artificial cross-pollination can only take place during the short time when the pollen is viable. As 

a result, soybean is considered to be a highly self-pollinated species, with cross-pollination to 

adjacent plants of other soybean varieties occurring at a very low frequency (0 to 6.3 percent)

(Caviness; Ray et al., 2003; USDA-APHIS, 2011; Yoshimura et al., 2006).

Under the No Action Alternative, conventional soybean varieties, including GE soybean 

varieties no longer subject to the regulatory requirements of 7 CFR part 340 or the plant pest 

provisions of the Plant Protection Act, will continue to be grown commercially while FG72 
44

soybean will remain a regulated article. Soybean cultivation practices are expected to remain 

the same. Gene flow from current commercially available GE cultivars to non-GE soybean 

cultivars is expected to remain unchanged from the current conditions.

Preferred Alternative: Gene Flow and Weediness

There are no compatible relatives of soybean in the U.S. Thus, gene flow is only possible 

between domesticated soybean plants (OECD, 2010). Soybean is predominantly a selfpollinated species (OECD, 2000), yet a small amount of outcrossing does occur. However, 

current cultivation practices to prevent out-crossing have been deemed sufficient to prevent 

unwanted gene flow. For soybean, the Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies 

(AOSCA) mandates a zero isolation distance: “Fields of soybeans shall be separated from any 

other variety or uncertified seed of the same variety by a distance adequate to prevent 

mechanical mixture.” 

FG72 soybean, compared to its non-transgenic parent variety (Jack), did not exhibit any changes 

in reproductive characteristics that would increase likelihood of gene flow, such as fecundity, 

seed dispersal, increased persistence, or pollen viability/germination (Bayer, 2011c; USDAAPHIS, 2012b). Thus, under the Preferred Alternative, the likelihood of gene flow from FG72 

soybean to other soybean varieties is not substantially different than between current soybean 

varieties.

FG72 soybean is not likely to be weedy. Soybean is not identified as a weed in the U.S. 

Phenotypic and agronomic characteristics of FG72 soybean were evaluated in a comparative 

manner to assess plant pest potential (OECD, 1993). These assessments included 17 plant 

growth and development characteristics: early stand count, plant vigor, days to flowering, flower 

color, leaf shape, health rating at stage V4-5, health rating at stage R1, health rating of mature 

plants, pubescence color, pod color, hilum color, canopy, days to maturity, yield in bu/ac, 

lodging, final stand count and pod shatter (Bayer, 2011c). Results of these evaluations indicate 

that there is no fundamental difference between FG72 soybean and conventional soybean for 

traits associated with weediness. Collectively, these findings support the conclusion that FG72 

soybean is no more likely to be a weed compared to conventional soybean (USDA-APHIS, 

2012b).

4.4.4 Microorganisms

No Action Alternative: Microorganisms

In particular, the soil microbial community is an integral ecosystem component that may provide 

and sustain critical ecological processes. Nutrient cycling, establishing soil structure 

contributing to plant growth, metabolism of deleterious components are all dependent on the 

microbial constituents. The health and growth of these microbes may be influenced by many 

processes and conditions in agriculture, such as the crop cultivated or the tillage method utilized 

(Steenwerth et al., 2002).

Under the No Action Alternative, soybean cultivation practices would continue as currently

practiced. Microbes in the field would continue to be exposed to common agronomic practices, 

glyphosate, and other pesticides applied to soybean.
45

Preferred Alternative: Microorganisms

Field observations were conducted to assess potential agronomic differences between FG72 

soybean and conventional soybean in 2003 and 2008 and at a total of 15 planting sites (Bayer, 

2011c). The disease analysis included observation of a wide range of bacterial and fungal 

pathogens, including downy mildew (Peronospora manshurica); bacterial blight (Pseudomonas 

syringae pv. Glycinea); Cercospora leaf blight (Cercospora kikuchii); brown spot (Septoria 

glycines); frogeye leafspot (Cercospora sojina); powdery mildew (Microsphaera diffusa); and 

sudden death syndrome (Fusarium virguliforme). No differences in disease susceptibility were 

observed between FG72 and conventional soybean, suggesting that the two introduced traits did 

not alter soybean interactions with microorganisms in the field (USDA-APHIS, 2012b). 

The soil microbial community is affected by standard agronomic practices, such as tillage 

patterns, agricultural inputs, and rotations strategies of the crop cultivated (Steenwerth et al., 

2002). FG72 soybean requires similar cultivation practices as commercialized soybean varieties, 

suggesting that a determination of nonregulated status is unlikely to substantially change current 

soybean production practices. In particular, tillage patterns have been identified as an important 

determinant of soil microbial community and structure (Eileen J, 2001; Lupwayi et al., 1998). 

Consequently, under the Preferred Alternative, FG72 soybean is unlikely to substantially affect 

microbial community and structure because it represents another herbicide-tolerant soybean 

variety that may enable conservation tillage strategies widely practiced in U.S. soybean 

production (NRC, 2010). Further support is evident from the decomposition of FG72 soybean 

plant material in the field following the implementation of conservation tillage (CTIC, 2008). It 

is unlikely to substantially affect the soil microbial community because FG72 soybean does not 

substantially differ from conventional soybean in compositional factors, including proximate and 

fiber components, amino and fatty acids, and relevant soybean anti-nutrients and isoflavones 

(USDA-APHIS, 2012b).

4.4.5 Biodiversity

No Action Alternative: Biodiversity

Biological diversity, or the variation in species or life forms in an area, is highly managed in 

agricultural systems. Farmers typically plant crops that are genetically adapted to grow well in a 

specific area of cultivation and have been bred for a specific market. In conventional agriculture, 

farmers want to encourage high yields from their corn crop, and will intensively manage plant 

and animal communities through chemical and cultural controls to protect the crop from damage. 

Therefore, the biological diversity in agricultural systems (the agro-ecosystem) is highly 

managed and may be lower than in the surrounding habitats. 

Under the No Action Alternative, FG72 soybean would continue to be a regulated article. 

Growers and other parties who are involved in production, handling, processing, or consumption 

of soybean would continue to have access to conventional soybean varieties, including GE 

soybean varieties that are no longer subject to the regulatory requirements of 7 CFR part 340 or 
46

the plant pest provisions of the Plant Protection Act. Agronomic practices associated with 

conventional soybean production such as tillage, cultivation, irrigation, pesticide application, 

fertilizer applications and agriculture equipment would continue unchanged. Animal and plant 

species that typically inhabit soybean production fields will continue to be affected by currently 

utilized management plans and systems, which include the use of mechanical, cultural, and 

chemical control methods.

Preferred Alternative: Biodiversity

Although soybean production fields are cultivated as plant monocultures to optimize yield, the 

adjacent landscape may harbor a wide variety of plants and animals. Broad spectrum herbicide 

application has the potential to impact off-site plant communities. Under the Preferred 

Alternative, cultivation, management, and land-use decisions related to FG72 soybean is not 

likely to be substantially different from conventional soybean varieties. Therefore, the four 

primary determinants of biodiversity in an agroecosystem (1: Diversity of vegetation within and 

around the agroecosystem; 2: Permanence of various crops within the system; 3: Intensity of 

management, including selection and use of insecticides and herbicides; and 4: Extent of 

isolation of the agroecosystem from natural vegetation) (Altieri, 1999) are likely to remain 

unchanged under the Preferred Alternative.

4.5 Human Health

No Action Alternative: Human Health

Under the No Action Alternative, human exposure to existing traditional and GE soybean 

varieties and their products would not change. Furthermore, soybean growers and farm workers 

will continue to be exposed to existing traditional and GE soybean varieties and their respective 

cultivation practices. In particular, soybean growers and farmworkers may be exposed to a 

variety of EPA-registered pesticides related to soybean pest management in both GE and non-GE 

soybean production systems. Worker safety is taken into consideration when a U.S. EPA

pesticide label is developed during the registration process. When use is consistent with the 

label, pesticides present minimal risk to the worker. No changes to current worker safety are 

anticipated under the No Action Alternative.

Preferred Alternative: Human Health

Bayer CropScience initiated the consultation process with FDA for the commercial distribution 

of FG72 soybean and submitted a safety and nutritional assessment of food and feed derived 

from FG72 soybean to the FDA on December 3, 2009. FDA is currently evaluating the 

submission, and as of March 16, 2012, has not completed the consultation. 

Public health concerns surrounding GE soybean primarily involve the human consumption of GE 

soybean products. FG72 soybean contains two introduced proteins, 2mEPSPS and HPPD W336. 

2mEPSPS has been previously analyzed and approved by several international regulatory

agencies, thus demonstrating that it is not likely to have any significant impact on human health 

(CFIA, 1998; FSANZ, 2001; SCF, 2002; USDA-APHIS, 1997). HPPD W336 is currently being 

analyzed by several regulatory agencies (CFIA, 2011; EFSA, 2011a; FSANZ, 2011b). However, 

there is no evidence to suggest that HPPD W336 would be detrimental to general human health. 
47

Bioinformatic analysis of HPPD W336 showed no significant lengthwise alignment with known 

toxins or allergens (Bayer, 2011c). HPPD W336 is derived from P. fluorescens, a ubiquitous, 

soil-borne bacterium with a history of safe use (Maurhofer et al., 1994; Sanger, 2012). While P. 

fluorescens may occur as an opportunistic pathogen in humans, this is generally limited to 

immune-compromised patients (McKellar, 1982; Wong et al., 2011). 

A comparison of FG72 soybean with conventional soybean varieties reveals compositional 

equivalence. Analysis of FG72 soybean proximate and fiber components (moisture, protein, fat, 

ash, carbohydrates, ADF, and NDF), amino acids, fatty acid content (C16:0; C18:0; C20:0; 

C22:0; C24:0; C18:1; C20:1; C18:2; and C18:3), antinutrients (phytic acid, raffinose, stachyose, 

letchtin, and trypsin inhibitor), and isoflavones (daidzin, genistin, glycitin, daidzein, genistein, 

and glycitein) demonstrated that FG72 soybean is not compositionally different from currently 

available soybean varieties (Bayer, 2011c; USDA-APHIS, 2012b). The characterization of 

soybean seed allergens also indicates that there are no substantial increases between FG72 and 

conventional soybean (Rouquié et al., 2010). 

The general public may come into contact with glyphosate and IFT used in the cultivation of 

GH72 soybean. Based on information provided in existing APHIS EAs (USDA-APHIS, 2012a), 

the potential human health risks associated with glyphosate use is expected to be similar to the 

No Action Alternative. Members of the general public are unlikely to come into direct exposure 

with IFT as a result of application. As a restricted-use pesticide, IFT is not registered for 

residential use and may only be applied by certified applicators or under the direct supervision of 

a certified applicator, thus mitigating potential exposure to IFT prior to harvest (EPA, 2011b, 

2012b). Furthermore, EPA has included use restrictions on the IFT label to mitigate potential 

exposure to IFT (Appendix A). EPA recently established combined tolerances for IFT and DKN 

on soybean and aspirated soybean grain fractions following a human health risk assessment 

(Appendix A) (EPA, 2011c). As a result of this human health risk assessment, EPA concluded 

that there are no residue chemistry, toxicological, or occupational/residential exposure issues that 

would preclude the establishment of an unconditional registration or permanent tolerances for 

IFT and DKN on soybean and aspirated soybean grain fractions (EPA, 2011c). Establishment of 

a tolerance for IFT on soybean concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm to 

human health will result from aggregate exposure to IFT or its residues, including all dietary 

exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information (76 FR 235, 2011). 

When used according with EPA label restrictions, the established tolerances of IFT on soybean 

and aspirated soybean grain fractions are unlikely to adversely affect human health.

4.6 Animal Feed

No Action Alternative: Animal Feed

The majority of the soybean cultivated in the U.S. is grown for animal feed and is usually 

fed as soybean meal. Under the No Action Alternative, soybean-based animal feed will still be 

available from currently cultivated conventional varieties, including GE soybean varieties that 

are no longer subject to the regulatory requirements of 7 CFR part 340 or the plant pest 

provisions of the Plant Protection Act. This includes herbicide-tolerant GE soybean varieties. 

No change in the availability of these crops as animal feed is expected under the No Action 

Alternative.
48

Preferred Alternative: Animal Feed

Under FFDCA, it is the responsibility of feed manufacturers to ensure that the products they 

market are safe and properly labeled. Feed derived from FG72 soybean must be in compliance 

with all applicable legal and regulatory requirements. GE organisms for feed may undergo a 

voluntary consultation process with the FDA prior to release onto the market. Bayer 

CropScience initiated the consultation process with FDA for the commercial distribution of 

FG72 soybean and submitted a safety and nutritional assessment of food and feed derived from 

FG72 soybean to the FDA on December 3, 2009. FDA is currently evaluating the submission, 

and as of March 16, 2012, has not completed the consultation.

A determination of nonregulated status of FG72 soybean is unlikely to adversely affect the 

nutrition of animal feed, and thus, animal health. The two introduced proteins in FG72 soybean, 

2mEPSPS and HPPD W336, are unlikely to substantially affect the nutritional quality of soybean 

meal derived from FG72 soybean. 2mEPSPS has been previously analyzed and approved by

several international regulatory agencies, demonstrating that it is not likely to have any

significant impact on animal health (CFIA, 1998; FSANZ, 2001; SCF, 2002; USDA-APHIS, 

1997). Though HPPD W336 has not previously been evaluated in animal feed, there is no reason 

to suspect it would present a substantial risk to animal health. HPPD proteins are ubiquitous in 

the environment. Additionally, bioinformatic analysis of HPPD W336 showed no significant 

lengthwise alignment with known toxins or allergens (Bayer, 2011c).

With regard to FG72 soybean itself, compositional analysis revealed no substantial differences 

between it and conventional soybean in factors important for animal feed, such as proximate and 

fiber components, amino acid and fatty acid content, and antinutrients and isoflavone 

concentrations (Bayer, 2011c). Consequently, the quality of animal feed derived from FG72 

soybean is unlikely to be substantially different than animal feed produced from current soybean 

varieties.

4.7 Socioeconomic Impacts

4.7.1 Domestic Economic Environment

No Action Alternative: Domestic Economic Enivonrment

In 2010, 76 million acres of soybeans were cultivated in the U.S., yielding 3.3 billion bushels at 

a value of 38.9 billion U.S. dollars (USDA-NASS, 2011c). The majority of soybeans produced 

in the U.S. is utilized domestically for animal feed, with less amounts and byproducts used for 

oil or fresh consumption (GINA, 2011; USDA-ERS, 2010b). 

Under the No Action Alternative, FG72 soybean and its progeny would remain regulated under 7 

CFR part 340. Growers and other parties who are involved in production, handling, processing, 

or consumption of soybean would not have access to FG72 soybean and its progeny, but would 

continue to have access to conventional soybean varieties, including GE soybean varieties that 

are no longer subject to the regulatory requirements of 7 CFR part 340 or the plant pest 
49

provisions of the Plant Protection Act. Domestic growers will continue to utilize conventional 

soybean varieties based upon availability and market demand.

Preferred Alternative: Domestic Economic Environment

Soybean composition greatly affects its viability as a component of animal feed. Soybean meal 

generally contains 50 percent protein by dry weight and is an important component of soybean 

production. An additional 19 percent (by weight) of domestically chorused soybeans are used to 

produce oil (USB, 2011). The fatty acid content of soybean grain is important for the domestic 

soybean oil industry, as the soybean oil profile affects melting point, oxidative stability, and 

chemical functionality, ultimately determining the market value/marketability of the product

(APAG, 2011).

A determination of nonregulated status of FG72 soybean is expected to have similar impacts on 

the domestic economic environment as the No Action Alternative. Paired comparison of FG72 

soybean with its nontransgenic, parent variety demonstrated no significant differences in fatty

acid or crude protein content (Figure 9). Thus, market sector use of FG72 soybean under the 

Preferred Alternative is unlikely to be substantially different from market use of Jack, as the 

primary factors of oil and protein content are not substantially different between the two soybean 

varieties.

Figure 9. Comparison of typical soybean fatty acids and crude protein between FG72 soybean 

and Jack. Source: Bayer (2011c).
50

4.7.2 Trade Economic Environment

No Action Alternative: Trade Economic Environment

The U.S. produces approximately 35 percent of the global soybean supply (Soy Stats, 2011c). In 

2010, the U.S. exported 1.6 billion bushels of soybean, which accounted for 44 percent of the 

world's soybean exports (Soy Stats, 2011b). The global demand for soybeans is expected to 

increase by a full third over 2010 consumption in the next ten years. China is expected to 

account for 80 percent of the increased demand (FAPRI, 2009; Hartnell, 2010). China and India 

are predicted to import 46 percent of the total soybean market by 2018/2019 (FAPRI, 2009). 

The USDA has predicted that U.S. exports will remain flat during much of this period, as a result 

of increase in domestic consumption and competition from South America (FAPRI, 2009; 

USDA-ERS, 2009).

Under the No Action Alternative, there is unlikely to be any change to the current soybean 

market. Most (93 percent) of the soybean varieties currently cultivated in the U.S. are GE 

varieties and it is predicted that this will not change substantially (USDA-ERS, 2011a). U.S. 

soybeans will continue to play a role in global soybean production, and the U.S. will continue to 

be a supplier in the international market.

Preferred Alternative: Trade Economic Environment

FG72 soybean is not likely to adversely impact the U.S. trade economic environment and may

have a positive impact through increased yields in soybean areas affected by glyphosate-resistant 

weeds. To support commercial introduction of FG72 soybean in the U.S., Bayer CropScience 

intends to submit dossiers to request import approval of FG72 soybean to the proper regulatory

authorities of several countries that already have regulatory processes for GE soybean in place. 

These include, but is not limited to: Canada, Mexico, Japan, the EU, South Korea, and China 

(Bayer, 2011c; Coates, 2012). In general, a global launch (i.e., commercialization) may not be 

undertaken until the proper regulatory approvals have been obtained (Coates, 2012). Approval 

in these export countries is intended to mitigate global sensitivities to GE productions and work 

in accordance with international regulations. The trade economic impacts associated with a 

determination of nonregulated status of FG72 soybean are anticipated to be very similar to the 

No Action Alternative.
51

5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

A cumulative impact may be an effect on the environment which results from the incremental

impact of the proposed action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions. For example, this may include the potential effects associated with a 

determination of nonregulated status of a GE crop in combination with the future production of 

crop seeds with multiple traits that are no longer subject to the regulatory requirements of 7 CFR 

part 340 or the plant pest provisions of the Plant Protection Act. A cumulative impact may also 

include the use of a pesticide with a similar mode of action to that of the intended pesticide 

described in the petition for nonregulated status.

5.1 Assumptions Used for Cumulative Impacts Analysis

Stacked soybean varieties may contain more than one GE trait as the result of crossing two GE 

soybean plants. Under the Preferred Alternative, FG72 soybean may be crossed with non-GE or 

GE soybean varieties that are no longer subject to the regulatory requirements of 7 CFR part 340 

or the plant pest provisions of the Plant Protection Act (USDA-APHIS, 2012a). APHIS

regulations at 7 CFR Part 340 do not provide for Agency oversight of GE soybean varieties no 

longer subject to the requirement of Part 340 and the plant pest provisions of the Plant Protection 

Act, or over stacked varieties combining these GE varieties, unless it can be positively shown 

that such stacked varieties were to pose a likely plant pest risk. With regard to FG72 soybean, 

there is no indication in the Bayer CropScience FG72 soybean petition or international import 

approval application packages that FG72 soybean will be stacked with any specific GE or nonGE soybean trait (Bayer, 2011c; EFSA, 2011b; FSANZ, 2011a). Even with regard to possible 

stacking with Bayer CropScience’s glufosinate-tolerant soybean (98-238-01p and 96-068-01p), 

there exists uncertainty in the development of that particular product, as glufosinate is described 

as a potential herbicide to control volunteer FG72 soybean in the Bayer CropScience petition 

(Bayer, 2011c). There is no assurance that FG72 soybean will be stacked with any particular GE

or non-GE soybean trait, as company plans and market demands play a major role in those 

business decisions. Therefore, predicting all potential combinations of stacked varieties from 

current GE and non-GE soybean varieties is hypothetical and speculative.

With regard to foreseeable herbicide use in U.S. soybean production, it is reasonable to assume 

that FG72 soybean will also confer tolerance to other herbicides that, like IFT, function as HPPD 

inhibitors. In particular, mesotrione represents an herbicide that may be applied on FG72 

soybean (Bay News, 2011). Mesotrione, developed by Syngenta, is commonly marketed under 

the Callisto®trade name. In 2009, the EPA established a tolerance for residues for mesotrione 

on soybean seed (74 FR 67119). EPA also amended the original Callisto®registration label to 

allow for a mesotrione-tolerant soybean at pre-emergent application rate of 0.188 lbs. a.i./acre 

(EPA, 2009b; Syngenta, 2011).

5.2 Cumulative Impacts: Acreage and Range of Soybean Production

Cumulative effects resulting from a determination of nonregulated status of FG72 soybean on 

acreage and range of soybean production are unlikely. GE soybean varieties already constitute a 

large proportion of U.S. soybean production (93 percent) (USDA-ERS, 2011a); cultivation of 
52

FG72 soybean with current GE soybean varieties is unlikely to substantially change this pattern 

of adoption, as it represents a replacement and not supplemental soybean variety for U.S. 

soybean growers.

Acreage of soybean production is primarily dependent on market demand; cultivation and 

associated production practices of FG72 soybean are unlikely to disrupt this causal relationship, 

as U.S. soybean production is strongly affected by market demand, not by any one soybean 

variety (USDA-ERS, 2010b, 2011c). Furthermore, the range of soybean cultivation is unlikely

to be impacted by a determination of nonregulated status of FG72 soybean. FG72 soybean 

generally does not present an absolute yield gain under standard management conditions and 

does not display a phenotype that would be indicative of an improved capacity to grow outside 

an agricultural environment (USDA-APHIS, 2012b). Similar to currently-available soybean 

varieties, FG72 soybean is likely to require cultivation on high quality arable land to be 

profitable. Consequently, FG72 soybean is unlikely to encourage cultivation on marginal land, 

thus maintaining currently-observed farm-level land-use decisions to shift agricultural land away

from other crops, such as cotton or hay, toward soybean production to satisfy market demand 

(USDA-ERS, 2010e, 2011c).

5.3 Cumulative Impacts: Agronomic Practices

Agronomic practices related to soybean production are often dependent on the particular soybean 

variety cultivated. FG72 soybean possesses similar agronomic requirements and pest 

sensitivities as conventional soybean, and thus, is not anticipated to have any cumulative effect 

on current and general soybean agronomic practices, such as fertilization, rotational, and 

pesticide application practices (USDA-APHIS, 2012b). 

Farmers that grow FG72 soybean may apply glyphosate, IFT, and/or mesotrione. Glyphosate is 

already applied on the majority of U.S. soybean acreage (NRC, 2010). Therefore, cultivation of 

FG72 soybean is unlikely to change current glyphosate use patterns, so no cumulative effects on 

agronomic practices are likely. A determination of nonregulated status of FG72 soybean may

permit the use of 4-HPPD inhibiting herbicides beyond IFT. Mesotrione, like IFT, is a broadspectrum herbicide that may be used to control a variety of broad-leaf weed species (Syngenta, 

2011). Additionally, mesotrione, like IFT, may be applied pre-emergence to FG72 soybean (74 

FR 67119; Bay News, 2011). Application of IFT and/or mesotrione over FG72 soybean is 

unlikely to result in any cumulative effect on current conservation tillage practices because both 

herbicides can be applied during a similar application window and provide control over a similar 

range of weed species (Bayer, 2011b; Syngenta, 2011). Furthermore, application of mesotrione, 

like IFT, does not result in common corn rotational restrictions (Bayer, 2011b; Syngenta, 2011). 

Application of mesotrione over FG72 soybean may result in a net herbicide use increase in U.S. 

soybean production, as mesotrione was only recently registered for use in soybean (74 FR 

67119). This net increase, however, may not be substantially higher than anticipated increases in 

soybean herbicide use described in Sections 2.1.2 and 4.2.2. Using corn production as an 

example of mesotrione use trends, mesotrione use was substantially less than that of glyphosate 

between 2001 – 2010, and represented only three percent of total glyphosate application in 2010 

(Table 11) (USDA-NASS, 2011a). Application in soybean may not be as high as corn due to 

restrictions in application time. In corn, mesotrione may be applied pre- or post-emergence; in 
53

soybean, however, mesotrione is only labeled for pre-emergent use (Syngenta, 2011). 

Additionally, the maximum application rate of mesotrione in soybean is less than that of corn 

(6.0 fl. oz., versus 7.7 fl. oz. respectively). Consequently, mesotrione use in soybean may be less 

than that of corn, due to a more restricted application window and annual use rate. Taken in 

total, application of IFT or mesotrione in FG72 soybean is unlikely to result in a cumulative 

effect on herbicide use, as restrictions in use, reduced application rate, and residual control post 

application of both herbicides may limit use of both herbicides relative to glyphosate in soybean 

production systems.

Table 11. Use of glyphosate and mesotrione in U.S. corn production, 2001 – 2010.

Year Glyphosate 

application in corn 

- Measured in 

total lbs. 

Average glyphosate 

application in corn -

Measured in total 

lbs./acre

Mesotrione 

application in 

corn - Measured 

in total lbs. 

Average mesotrione 

application in corn -

Measured in total 

lbs./acre

2010 57,536,000 0.82 1,693,000 0.121

2005 22,967,000 0.73 1,853,000 0.119

2003 11,913,000 0.69 976,000 0.1

2002 3,307,000 0.64 367,000 0.09

2001 6,868,000 0.66 7,000 0.09

Source: USDA-NASS (2011a).

5.4 Cumulative Impacts: Organic Soybean Production

A determination of nonregulated status of FG72 soybean is unlikely to have a cumulative effect 

on organic soybean production. FG72 soybean, like other soybean varieties, is primarily a selfpollinated crop (USDA-APHIS, 2012b). There is no reason to suspect that the biology of FG72 

soybean will increase its potential to outcross with soybean varieties utilized in organic soybean 

production because field studies revealed no substantial differences in factors influencing 

reproductive potential, including pollen viability, date of emergence, date of 50 percent 

flowering, and date of maturity (USDA-APHIS, 2012b). 

Despite increasing demand for organic soybean products and commodities, U.S. production of 

organic soybean is unlikely to keep pace (USDA-ERS, 2010c). It is unlikely that FG72 soybean 

will substantially affect this trend. Reasons for the inability of domestic organic soybean 

production to meet demand include: 1) the three-year period transition period between 

conventional and organic farming; 2) a lack of contractors for organic agronomic practices, 

including pest and nutrient management; 3) intensive labor requirements; 4) fear of criticism 

from neighbors; 5) an absence of government infrastructure and policy support; and 6) unknown 

risks (Clarkson, 2007; USDA-ERS, 2007). The increased demand for organic soybean in the 

U.S. has generally been met by increasing imports from international organic soybean producers 

(The Organic & Non-GMO Report, 2007; USDA-ERS, 2007).
54

5.5 Cumulative Impacts: Soil Quality

A determination of nonregulated status of FG72 soybean is unlikely to result in a cumulative 

impact on soil quality. Comprehensive phenotypic, agronomic, and ecological assessments 

conducted by the petitioner for FG72 soybean did not find substantial differences between FG72 

soybean and control soybeans for these characteristics (Bayer, 2011c). The few differences that 

were identified were typically small, site specific, and unlikely to be biologically meaningful. 

Event FG72 soybean required similar agronomic practices as non-GE soybean (Bayer, 2011c). 

Consequently, the phenotypic, agronomic, and ecological data presented in the Bayer petition 

support the conclusion by APHIS that FG72 soybean will not substantially modify soil 

characteristics associated with typical soybean production practices. In particular, FG72 soybean 

will permit the continued trend of conservation tillage, an agricultural practice with strong direct 

and positive effects on soil quality (Holland, 2004; NRC, 2010).

Farmers that grow FG72 soybean may apply glyphosate, IFT, and/or mesotrione. Glyphosate is 

already applied on the majority of U.S. soybean acreage (NRC, 2010). Therefore, cultivation of 

FG72 soybean is unlikely to change current glyphosate use patterns, so no cumulative effects on 

soil quality are likely. Mesotrione may be applied pre-emergence to FG72 soybean production 

fields. Like IFT, mesotrione is a 4-HPPD inhibitor. Mesotrione does not persistent in soil, as 

indicated by photolysis, aerobic and anaerobic soil metabolism, and field dissipation studies 

(EPA, 2001b). Any impact directly from soil quality as a result of mesotrione application is 

most likely to affect rotational crops that may be planted sometime after mesotrione application. 

For this purpose, rotational restrictions are described on the EPA use label, indicating which 

crops are safe to plant (Syngenta, 2011). The presence of these rotational restrictions is not 

inherently any different than rotational restrictions with currently used soybean herbicides.

5.6 Cumulative Impacts: Water Resources

A determination of nonregulated status is unlikely to result in a cumulative impact on water 

resources related to soybean production. This conclusion is based on the fact that cultivation of 

FG72 soybean is likely to permit the continued use of conservation tillage, and thus, maintain its 

indirect and positive effects on water quality and runoff. The agronomic performance of FG72 

soybean is similar to conventional soybean, suggesting that FG72 soybean does not require more 

irrigation than currently-available soybean varieties (Bayer, 2011c; USDA-APHIS, 2012b). 

Farmers that grow FG72 soybean may apply glyphosate, IFT, and/or mesotrione. Glyphosate is 

already applied on the majority of U.S. soybean acreage. Therefore, cultivation of FG72 

soybean is unlikely to change current glyphosate use patterns, so no cumulative effects on water 

quality are likely. IFT and mesotrione are not anticipated to result in any cumulative effect on 

water quality, because they do not persist in soil or aqueous environments (EPA, 2008, 2011d). 

Furthermore, while both IFT and mesotrione may be mobile in water, the leaching potential of 

each compound is not substantially greater than current herbicides commonly utilized in soybean 

production, suggesting that they pose no greater leaching risk to water resources (NY State IPM 

Program, 2012a, 2012b).
55

5.7 Cumulative Impacts: Air Quality

APHIS has not identified any cumulative effects for this issue resulting from a determination of 

nonregulated status of FG72 soybean. APHIS does not anticipate any substantial changes in 

soybean production practices or an expansion of soybean acreage as a result of a determination 

of nonregulated status of FG72 soybean. Agricultural practices will continue to have the 

potential to cause negative impacts to air quality. Agricultural emission sources will continue to 

include smoke from agricultural burning, tillage, traffic and harvest emissions, and nitrous oxide 

emissions from the use of nitrogen fertilizer. These agricultural emissions sources are 

anticipated to be similar between conventional soybean varieties and cultivation of FG72 

soybean.

5.8 Cumulative Impacts: Climate Change

APHIS has not identified any cumulative effects on climate change following a determination of 

nonregulated status of FG72 soybean. APHIS does not anticipate any substantial changes in 

soybean production practices or an expansion of soybean acreage as a result of a determination 

of nonregulated status of FG72 soybean. The consequences of the Preferred Action Alternative 

on commercial soybean production and acreage are the same as for the No Action Alternative.

It is possible that climate change may affect soybean cultivation areas in the U.S. For example, 

as projected by the U.S. Global Change Research Program (2009), the northern regions of the 

Great Plains may become wetter while the southern regions may become drier. However, these 

shifts are unlikely to uniquely affect FG72 soybean, as there is no reasonable expectation that 

this soybean variety would require less moisture or possess a cultivation range that is different 

than conventional soybean.

5.9 Cumulative Impacts: Animal Communities

Under field conditions, soybean or soybean grain may be used by mammals, birds, or arthropods. 

Bayer CropScience data demonstrates that the composition of FG72 soybean does not 

substantially differ from conventional soybean varieties (USDA-APHIS, 2012b). Both APHIS 

and Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) have concluded that FG72 soybean is 

compositionally similar to conventional soybean (FSANZ, 2011a; USDA-APHIS, 2012b). This 

indicates that FG72 soybean is unlikely to result in a cumulative effect on animal communities 

through consumption.

Pesticides are applied on a majority of U.S. soybean acres, with herbicides representing the 

majority of pesticide applications (NRC, 2010; USDA-NASS, 2007). Nontarget insects are 

unlikely to be substantially affected by insecticide application practices in FG72 soybean 

compared to conventional soybean, as insecticide application patterns are similar between FG72 

and conventional soybean (USDA-APHIS, 2012b). 

Farmers that grow FG72 soybean may apply glyphosate, IFT, and/or mesotrione. Glyphosate is 

already applied on the majority of U.S. soybean acreage (NRC, 2010). Therefore, cultivation of 

FG72 soybean is unlikely to change current glyphosate use patterns, so no cumulative effects on 

animals are likely. The potential pre-emergent application of mesotrione to FG72 soybean is not 

anticipated to cause a cumulative effect on animal communities because mesotrione is practically
56

non-toxic to birds, small mammals, fish, daphnids and relatively non-toxic to honey bees (EPA, 

2001b). This is effectively similar to the environmental fate of IFT, which poses little risk to 

birds, mammals, fish, and the honey bee (EPA, 2011b, 2011d).

5.10 Cumulative Impacts: Plant Communities

A determination of nonregulated status of FG72 soybean is unlikely to have any cumulative 

effect on plant communities beyond what is already occurring in soybean production. The 

introduced proteins in FG72 soybean, 2mEPSPS and HPPD W336, are derived from organisms 

that are non-pathogenic and/or non-toxic to plants; these proteins are effectively benign in the 

environment (Bayer, 2011c). There are no wild relatives of soybean in the U.S. This eliminates 

any gene transfer between FG72 and non-domesticated plants (OECD, 2010). Furthermore, 

FG72 soybean does not display weedy characteristics and is not expected to be a weed (USDAAPHIS, 2012b).

Cultivation of FG72 soybean will permit the use of glyphosate, IFT, and/or mesotrione to control 

weed populations. Glyphosate is already widely applied in U.S. soybean production fields 

(Bonny, 2011; NRC, 2010; USDA-NASS, 2007). Since FG72 soybean is tolerant to glyphosate, 

it is unlikely to disrupt current glyphosate use patterns and its effect on plant communities. 

IFT and mesotrione are broad-spectrum herbicides that have not previously been utilized in 

soybean production. Both IFT and mesotrione share control characteristics of common weed 

species (Figure 10). Mesotrione demonstrates a smaller range in controllable weed species than 

IFT, primarily due to less effective grass weed control (Syngenta, 2011). However, mesotrione, 

like IFT, represents another herbicide in a growing diversity of herbicides utilized in soybean 

production and is not likely to result in a cumulative impact on weed species relative to other 

herbicides currently utilized in U.S. soybean production. 

Runoff of IFT or mesotrione may pose an environmental risk to non-target plants (EPA, 2001b, 

2011d). However, runoff is a risk associated with any broad-spectrum herbicide and is not 

unique to IFT or mesotrione. As a consequence of its registration, EPA has determined that there 

is no unreasonable environmental risk if end users adhere to the EPA label directions when 

applying IFT or mesotrione herbicide formulations on soybeans. Violators of the regulations are 

liable for all negative consequences of their actions. This imposes an added incentive on farmers 

use IFT and/or mesotrione to follow EPA label use restrictions. 

Weed populations can change in response to farm-level agronomic practices, including weed 

management decisions. Cultivation of FG72 soybean may provide some utility in the control of 

glyphosate-resistant weeds because IFT and mesotrione represent broad-spectrum herbicides 

with an alternative MoA. With respect to glyphosate-resistant weeds that may be found in U.S. 

soybean fields, mesotrione provides a more limited spectrum of control, primarily due to its 

ineffectiveness against grassy weeds (Table 12). By possessing an alternative MoA, mesotrione 

can be expected to control kochia, Palmer amaranth, common and giant ragweed, and common 

waterhemp (Syngenta, 2011).
57

Figure 10. Weed control provided by herbicides isoxaflutole (IFT) and mesotrione. In contrast 

to isoxaflutole, mesotrione does not generally provide control of weedy grasses Sources: Bayer 

(2011b) and Syngenta (2011).

Table 12. Glyphosate-resistant weed (in soybean fields) control profiles for isoxaflutole (IFT)

and mesotrione.

Broadleaf Weeds* Isoxaflutole 

control/suppression

Mesotrione 

control/suppression

Horseweed (Marestail) (Conyza candensis) Yes No

Kochia (Kochia scoparia) Yes Yes

Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) Yes Yes

Common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) Yes Yes

Giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) Yes Yes

Common waterhemp (Amaranthus 

tuberculatus) Yes Yes

Goosegrass (Eleusine indica) Yes No

Italian ryegrass (Lolium spp. multiflorum) Yes No

Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) Yes No

*Only certain weed populations demonstrate glyphosate resistance. 

Sources: Bayer (2011b) and Syngenta (2011). 
58

Since 2009, four populations of common waterhemp in Illinois, Iowa, and Nebraska were 

reported to be resistant to 4-HPPD inhibitors (Heap, 2011b). Despite the four reported cases, 

only one waterhemp population (Mclean County, IL) was studied in detail (Hausman et al., 

2011; Syngenta, 2010). In the Mclean County population (which also possessed non-target site 

atrazine resistance), development of 4-HPPD resistance was generally linked to seed corn 

production and its respective management strategies that precluded the application of preemergent and broad-spectrum herbicides. As a result, 4-HPPD inhibitors were used without 

MoA rotation over the course of seven growing seasons (2003 – 2009) (Hausman et al., 2011). 

Further examination of this waterhemp population revealed that control could be achieved 

through several common agricultural strategies, including the pre-emergent application of 4-

HPPD inhibitors and post-emergent foliar application of broad-spectrum herbicides, such as 

glyphosate and glufosinate (Syngenta, 2010). 

While the Mclean County population of waterhemp demonstrated that the development of 

resistance to 4-HPPD inhibitors is possible, it also underscored the value of herbicide chemistry

rotation (alternative MoA) across growing seasons and the utility of pre-emergent herbicide 

application in weed control. Effective management, however, does not ensure that herbicide use 

is intrinsically sustainable. Herbicide use (and indirectly, the use of herbicide-tolerant crops) is 

sustainable only as a component of a broader integrated weed management system (Mortensen et 

al., 2012) and that the preemptive incorporation of integrated weed management measures may

prevent or mitigate the development of a resistant weed population (Bayer, 2011c). Agricultural 

weed development is not necessarily limited to herbicide use, but may also develop in response 

to cultural methods not reliant on herbicide use (Vaughan et al., 2008). Thus, integrated weed 

management does not exclude any one management technique. It incorporates a number of 

practices, including the use of cover and rotational crops, tillage, and herbicide applications to 

reduce selection pressure and weed populations in an agroenvironment (Mortensen et al., 2012). 

As part of its integrated weed management plan for FG72 soybean, Bayer has proposed the 

following in its stewardship of FG72 soybean:

 Correctly identify weeds and look for trouble areas within field to identify resistance 

indicators;

 Rotate crops;

 Start the growing season with clean fields;

 Rotate herbicide MoA by using multiple MoAs during the growing season and apply no 

more than two applications of a single herbicide MoA to the same field in a two-year 

period. One method to accomplish this is to rotate herbicide-tolerant trait systems;

 Apply recommended rates of herbicides to actively growing weeds at the correct time 

with the right application techniques;

 Control any weeds that may have escaped the herbicide application; and

 Thoroughly clean field equipment between fields (Bayer, 2011c).

Cultivation of FG72 soybean may potentially allow a more comprehensive approach to weed 

management. Crop and herbicide rotation are two factors that may mitigate the development of 

herbicide resistance in weeds. As stated previously in this EA, there is reason to believe that 
59

FG72 soybean would benefit from crop rotation (similar to commercial soybean varieties), and 

that FG72 soybean would permit the use of two herbicides with different MoAs, followed by use 

of an alternative MoA in the next growing season (e.g., glufosinate). Utilized within an 

integrated weed management system and within the context of best management practices, a 

determination of nonregulated status of FG72 soybean may positively contribute to the control of 

glyphosate-resistant weed populations while also reducing the development of other herbicide 

resistance.

5.11 Cumulative Impacts: Gene Flow and Weediness

As described in the USDA-APHIS PPRA for FG72 soybean, no substantial differences are 

observed in pollen viability, pollen morphology, or seed dormancy (Bayer, 2011c). 

Consequently, the barriers that exist between different soybean varieties and sexually-compatible 

soybean varieties would likely continue to act as limitations on gene flow without any

cumulative effect on gene flow. The soybean industry has identity protection (IP) measures in 

place to restrict pollen movement and gene flow between soybean fields through the use of 

isolation distances, border and barrier rows, the staggering of planting dates and various seed 

handling, transportation, and cleaning procedures (Bradford, 2006; NCAT, 2003; Sundstrom et 

al., 2002). Furthermore, FG72 soybean represents a domesticated soybean variety that would not 

be anticipated to survive outside the agricultural environment, indicating that cultivation of FG72 

soybean may not result in a cumulative effect on plant weediness.

5.12 Cumulative Impacts: Microorganisms

Cultivation of FG72 soybean is unlikely to have a cumulative effect on soil microorganisms 

relative to the cultivation of conventional soybean varieties, including GE soybean varieties that 

are no longer subject to the regulatory requirements of 7 CFR part 340 or the plant pest 

provisions of the Plant Protection Act. Microbial activity in agricultural soil is often strongly 

dependent on cultivation conditions, with the primary effectors representing crop type, 

seasonality, prevalent soil properties, and tillage strategy (Hart et al., 2009; Holland, 2004). 

When generally compared to existing soybean production practices, cultivation of FG72 will 

utilize similar management conditions, such as the continuation of conservation tillage, seasonal 

rotation of soybean with additional crops, and broad use of herbicides. In particular, the 

majority of U.S. soybean acres are sprayed with glyphosate and other herbicides. FG72 

soybean will permit the continuation of this existing trend, as it will permit the application of 

glyphosate and IFT. Because any microorganism is already extensively exposed to herbicides 

in current U.S. soybean production fields, it is unlikely that any new microorganism would be 

affected through production practices associated with FG72 soybean or its progeny. For 

example, a determination of nonregulated status of FG72 soybean may result in the preemergent application of mesotrione. Toxicity of mesotrione at recommended field application 

rates, however, is generally not toxic to microorganisms or any more toxic than commonly 

applied agricultural herbicides (Bonnet et al., 2008; Crouzet et al., 2009).

5.13 Cumulative Impacts: Biodiversity

Cultivation of FG72 soybean is unlikely to have toxic effects on non-target animals and 

microorganisms. Additionally, cultivation of FG72 soybean is likely to be neutral with regard to 
60

biodiversity compared with typical GE and non-GE soybean production systems, due to similar 

management conditions for both production systems. Application of herbicides in U.S. soybean 

production will continue to be dictated by both individual farm need and EPA label use

restrictions. As a consequence of its herbicide registration program, EPA has effectively 

determined that there is no unreasonable environmental risk if the end user adheres to the 

directions and restrictions on the EPA registration label when applying herbicide formulations. 

When required, application by a certified applicator further minimizes effects on biodiversity. 

Since violators of requirements are liable and can be held legally accountable for all negative 

consequences of their actions, this responsibility serves as an additional safeguard against any

adverse cumulative effects on non-target organisms and biodiversity from the use of EPA 

restricted use pesticides.

The use of GE soybean varieties containing herbicide-tolerant traits may improve biological 

diversity by providing growers the opportunity to use conservation tillage practices (Bonny, 

2011; NRC, 2010). Incorporation of herbicide tolerance in the crop facilitates the grower 

adoption of conservation and no-till strategies, improved soil porosity, enhancing soil fauna and 

flora (CTIC, 2010), increasing the flexibility of crop rotation, and facilitating strip cropping 

(Fernandez-Cornejo et al., 2002). Each of these contributes to the health of the faunal and floral 

communities in and around soybean fields thereby promoting biodiversity (Palmer et al., 2010).

5.14 Cumulative Impacts: Human Health

A determination of nonregulated status of FG72 soybean is not anticipated to result in any

cumulative effect on human health. FG72 soybean is compositionally equivalent to conventional 

soybean (USDA-APHIS, 2012b). Therefore, consumption of FG72 soybean is expected to be as 

safe as consumption of conventional soybean. FSANZ has already determined that FG72 

soybean is as whole and nutritious as conventional soybean (FSANZ, 2011a, 2011b). 

Farmers that grow FG72 soybean may apply glyphosate, IFT, and/or mesotrione. Glyphosate is 

already applied on the majority of U.S. soybean acreage (NRC, 2010). Therefore, cultivation of 

FG72 soybean is unlikely to change current glyphosate use patterns, so no cumulative effects on 

human health are likely. Human exposure to IFT or mesotrione, either indirectly through residue 

on soybean grain or directly through soybean production in the field, is not expected to result in a 

cumulative impact on human health. Pesticide tolerances have been established for both IFT and 

mesotrione on soybean, so no unnecessary risk to human health from residues resulting from 

application at approved labeled use rates are anticipated (74 FR 67119; 76 FR 235). Human 

health risk assessments for IFT and mesotrione have generally indicated that both herbicides 

pose no unnecessary risk to human health (EPA, 2009b, 2011c). Additionally, registration and 

application of these pesticides will also continue to be regulated by EPA, ensuring that there is 

no unnecessary risk for both the general public and agricultural workers.

5.15 Cumulative Impacts: Animal Feed

FG72 soybean is not anticipated to result in any cumulative effect on animal feed. The 

introduced proteins in FG72 soybean are not toxic or allergic. Since the composition of FG72 is 

similar to conventional soybean varieties, this also serves as a good indicator that negative 

effects on feed quality containing FG72 soybean grain are unlikely (Bayer, 2011c). FSANZ has 
61

already determined that FG72 soybean is as whole and nutritious as conventional soybean 

(FSANZ, 2011a, 2011b).

Farmers that grow FG72 soybean may apply glyphosate, IFT, and/or mesotrione. Glyphosate is 

already applied on the majority of U.S. soybean acreage (NRC, 2010). Therefore, cultivation of 

FG72 soybean is unlikely to change current glyphosate use patterns, so no cumulative effects on 

animal feeds are likely. Animals may be exposed to IFT or mesotrione through residue on 

soybean grain that is added to animal feed. This exposure route is not expected to result in a 

cumulative impact on animal health. Pesticide tolerances have been established for both IFT and 

mesotrione on soybean, so residues resulting from application at recommended rates are not 

anticipated to pose any unnecessary risks (74 FR 67119; 76 FR 235). 

5.16 Cumulative Impacts: Domestic Economic Environment

Domestically-produced soybean and soybean products are produced for a number of markets. 

Market use of soybean is often dependent on the soybean variety, and thus composition, 

produced. There are compositional differences among some soybean varieties grown for animal 

feed and those for human consumption. These include those soybean varieties that are 

intentionally produced to yield a modified fatty acid profile. They may include soybeans that 

have been produced through standard breeding or GE methods. With regard to these modified 

oil soybean varieties, the soybean industry already utilizes identity protection measures to restrict 

pollen movement and gene flow between soybean fields through the use of mitigations such as

isolation distances, border and barrier rows, the staggering of planting dates and various seed 

handling, transportation, and cleaning procedures (Bradford, 2006; NCAT, 2003; Sundstrom et 

al., 2002). FG72 soybean is compositionally similar to its non-GE comparator, Jack (Bayer, 

2011c). Thus, market use of FG72 soybean should be similar to that of Jack. With regard to 

ensuring the quality of soybean animal feed, because of the general absence of plant reproductive 

attributes that could affect gene flow, it is unlikely that FG72 soybean would present any 

additional issue beyond those already discussed for conventional soybean varieties.

5.17 Cumulative Impacts: Trade Economic Environment

Although the primary U.S. soybean export destinations do not present major barriers to trade in 

GE products, Bayer CropScience would need to obtain FG72 soybean approval in destination 

countries before commercialization in the U.S. to avoid adversely affecting current trade flows. 

Requests for approvals have been submitted to several markets, including, but is not limited to, 

Canada, Mexico, Japan, the EU, South Korea, and China. Bayer CropScience has previously

stated its intention to seek approval for FG72 soybean in primary U.S. export destinations with 

functioning regulatory systems before commercialization in the U.S. (Coates, 2012). Thus, a 

cumulative effect on the trade economic environment is not anticipated following a 

determination of nonregulated status of FG72 soybean, because it is unlikely to be 

commercialized until it is approved for export to major U.S. soybean importing countries.
62

6 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

Congress passed the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, to prevent extinctions 

facing many species of fish, wildlife and plants. The purpose of the ESA is to conserve 

endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems on which they depend as key components 

of America’s heritage. To implement the ESA, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

works in cooperation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), other Federal, State, 

and local agencies, Tribes, non-governmental organizations, and private citizens. Before a plant 

or animal species can receive the protection provided by the ESA, it must first be added to the 

Federal list of threatened and endangered wildlife and plants.

A species is added to the list when it is determined by the USFWS/NMFS to be endangered or 

threatened because of any of the following factors:

 The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or 

range;

 Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;

 Disease or predation;

 The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and

 The natural or manmade factors affecting its survival.

Once an animal or plant is added to the list, in accordance with the ESA, protective measures 

apply to the species and its habitat. These measures include protection from adverse effects of 

Federal activities. 

Section 7 (a)(2) of the ESA requires that Federal agencies, in consultation with USFWS and/or 

the NMFS, ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. It is the responsibility of the Federal agency taking the action to 

assess the effects of their action and to consult with the USFWS and NMFS if it is determined 

that the action “may affect” listed species or critical habitat. To facilitate APHIS’ ESA 

consultation process, APHIS met with the USFWS from 1999 to 2003 to discuss factors relevant 

to APHIS’s regulatory authority and effects analysis for petitions for nonregulated status, and 

developed a process for conducting an effects determination consistent with the Plant 

Protection Act (PPA) of 2000 (Title IV of Public Law 106-224). APHIS uses this process to 

help fulfill its obligations and responsibilities under Section 7 of the ESA for biotechnology 

regulatory actions. 

APHIS’ regulatory authority over GE organisms under the PPA is limited to those GE 

organisms for which it has reason to believe might be a plant pest or those for which APHIS does 

not have sufficient information to determine that the GE organism is unlikely to pose a plant pest 

risk (7 CFR § 340.1). APHIS does not have authority to regulate the use of any herbicide, 

including glyphosate or isoxaflutole (IFT). After completing a PPRA, if APHIS determines that 

FG72 soybean does not pose a plant pest risk, then FG72 soybean would no longer be subject to 

the plant pest provisions of the Plant Protection Act or to the regulatory requirements of 7 CFR 

Part 340, and therefore, APHIS must reach a determination that the article is no longer regulated. 
63

As part of its EA analysis, APHIS is analyzing the potential effects of FG72 soybean on the 

environment including any potential effects to threatened and endangered species and critical 

habitat. As part of this process, APHIS thoroughly reviews the GE product information and data 

related to the organism (generally a plant species, but may also be other genetically engineered 

organisms). For each transgene/transgenic plant, APHIS considers the following information, 

data, and questions:

 A review of the biology and taxonomy of the crop plant and its sexually compatible 

relatives;

 Characterization of each transgene with respect to its structure and function and the 

nature of the organism from which it was obtained;

 A determination of where the new transgene and its products (if any) are produced in 

the plant and their quantity;

 A review of the agronomic performance of the plant including disease and pest 

susceptibilities, weediness potential, and agronomic and environmental impact;

 Determination of the concentrations of known plant toxicants (if any are known in the 

plant); 

 Analysis to determine if the transgenic plant is sexually compatible with any

threatened or endangered species (TES) of plants or a host of any TES; and

 Any other information that may inform the potential for an organism to pose a plant 

pest risk.

In following this review process, APHIS, as described below, has evaluated the potential effects 

that a determination of nonregulated status of FG72 soybean may have, if any, on Federallylisted TES and species proposed for listing, as well as designated critical habitat and habitat 

proposed for designation. Based upon the scope of the EA and production areas identified in the 

Affected Environment section of the EA, APHIS obtained and reviewed the USFWS list of TES 

species (listed and proposed) for each state where soybean is commercially produced from the 

USFWS Environmental Conservation Online System (USFWS, 2012). Prior to this review, 

APHIS considered the potential for FG72 soybean to extend the range of soybean production and 

also the potential to extend agricultural production into new natural areas. Bayer CropScience’s

studies demonstrate that agronomic characteristics and cultivation practices required for FG72 

soybean are essentially indistinguishable from practices used to grow other soybean varieties, 

including other herbicide-tolerant varieties (Bayer, 2011c; USDA-APHIS, 2012b). Although 

FG72 soybean may be expected to replace other varieties of soybean currently cultivated, APHIS 

does not expect the cultivation of FG72 soybean to result in new soybean acres to be planted in 

areas that are not already devoted soybean production. Accordingly, the issues discussed herein 

focus on the potential environmental consequences of the determination of nonregulated status of 

FG72 soybean on TES species in the areas where soybean are currently grown. 

APHIS focused its TES review on the implications of exposure to the 2mEPSPS and HPPD 

W336 proteins in FG72 soybean, the interaction between TES and FG72 soybean, including the 

potential for sexual compatibility and the ability to serve as a host for a TES; and potential 
64

impacts of the use of glyphosate and IFT herbicides to non-target organisms and the natural 

environment.

6.1 Potential Effects of FG72 Soybean on TES

Threatened and Endangered Plant Species

The agronomic data provided by Bayer CropScience were used in the APHIS analysis of the 

weediness potential for FG72 soybean and further evaluated for the potential to impact TES. 

Agronomic studies conducted by Bayer CropScience tested the hypothesis that the weediness 

potential of FG72 soybean is unchanged with respect to conventional soybean (Bayer, 2011c; 

USDA-APHIS, 2012b). No differences were detected between FG72 soybean and conventional 

soybean in growth, reproduction, or interactions with pests and diseases, other than the intended 

effect of herbicide tolerance (USDA-APHIS, 2012b). Potential of soybean weediness is low, 

due to domestication syndrome traits that generally lower overall fitness outside an agricultural 

environment (Stewart et al., 2003). Mature soybean seeds have no innate dormancy, are 

sensitive to cold, and are not expected to survive in freezing winter conditions (Raper and 

Kramer, 1987). Soybeans have been cultivated around the globe without any report that it is a 

serious weed or that it forms persistent feral populations (USDA-APHIS, 2012b). Soybean 

cannot survive in the majority of the country without human intervention, and it is easily

controlled if volunteers appear in subsequent crops. APHIS has concluded the determination of 

nonregulated status of FG72 soybean does not present a plant pest risk, does not present a risk of 

weediness, and does not present an increased risk of gene flow when compared to other 

currently cultivated soybean varieties. Based on the agronomic field data and literature survey

on soybean weediness potential, FG72 soybean is unlikely to affect TES as a troublesome or 

invasive weed (USDA-APHIS, 2012b).

APHIS evaluated the potential of FG72 soybean to cross with a listed species. As discussed 

above and in the analysis of Gene Movement and Weediness, APHIS has determined that there 

is no risk to unrelated plant species from the cultivation of FG72 soybean. Soybean is highly 

self-pollinating and can only cross with other members of Glycine subgenus Soja. Wild 

soybean species are endemic in China, Korea, Japan, Taiwan and the former USSR; in the U.S. 

there are no Glycine species found outside of cultivation and the potential for outcrossing is 

minimal (OECD, 2010). After reviewing the list of threatened and endangered plant species in 

the U.S. states where soybean is grown, APHIS determined that FG72 soybean would not be 

sexually compatible with any listed threatened or endangered plant species proposed for listing, 

as none of these listed plants are in the same genus nor are known to cross pollinate with species 

of the genus Glycine.

Based on the agronomic field data, literature survey on soybean weediness potential, and that 

there are no TES sexually compatible with soybean, APHIS has concluded that FG72 soybean

will have no effect on threatened or endangered plant species.

Threatened and Endangered Animal Species

Threatened and endangered animal species that may be exposed to the gene products in FG72 

soybean would be those TES that inhabit soybean fields and feed on FG72 soybean. To identify
65

potential effects on threatened and endangered animal species, APHIS evaluated the risks to 

threatened and endangered animals from consuming FG72 soybean. Soybean commonly is used 

as a feed for many livestock. Additionally, wildlife may use soybean fields as a food source, 

consuming the plant, grain, or insects that live on the plants. However, TES generally are found 

outside of agricultural fields. Few if any TES are likely to use soybean fields because they do not 

provide suitable habitat. Only whooping crane (Grus americana), sandhill crane (Grus 

canadensis pulla), piping plover (Charadrius melodus), and interior least tern (Sterna 

antillarum) (USFWS, 2011a). These bird species may visit soybean fields during migratory

periods, but would not be present during normal farming operations (Krapu et al., 2004; USFWS, 

2011a). In a study of soybean consumption by wildlife in Nebraska, results indicated that 

soybeans do not provide the high energy food source needed by cranes and waterfowl (Krapu et 

al., 2004). The Delmarva fox squirrel (Sciurus niger cinereus), which inhabits mature forests of 

mixed hardwoods and pines, may be found adjacent to agricultural areas of the Delmarva 

Peninsula (USFWS, 2011b). This species feeds primarily on acorns, nuts, and pine seeds and is 

not likely to utilize soybeans to any extent. The Louisiana black bear (Ursus americanus 

luteolus), occurring in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas (Johnsen et al., 2005), may occasionally

forage on soybean; however, other crops such as corn, sugarcane, and winter wheat are preferred 

by this species (MSU Extension Service, Undated).

FG72 soybean is genetically engineered to show 2mEPSPS and HPPD W336 protein 

accumulation, and thus, herbicide tolerance to glyphosate and IFT. 2mEPSPS has been 

previously analyzed and approved by several international regulatory agencies, thus 

demonstrating that it is not likely to have any significant impact on animal health (CFIA, 1998; 

FSANZ, 2001; SCF, 2002; USDA-APHIS, 1997). The food and feed safety of 2mEPSPS has 

been assessed in these products and shown to present no food or feed safety risk. Though HPPD 

W336 has not previously been evaluated, there is no reason to suspect it would present a risk to 

non-target organisms. HPPD proteins are ubiquitous in the environment and are not novel. 

Bioinformatic analysis of HPPD W336 showed no significant lengthwise alignment with known 

toxins or allergens (Bayer, 2011c).

FG72 soybean is within the scope of the FDA policy statement concerning regulation of products 

derived from new plant varieties, including those produced through genetic engineering. Bayer 

CropScience initiated the consultation process with FDA for the commercial distribution of 

FG72 soybean and submitted a safety and nutritional assessment of food and feed derived from 

FG72 soybean to the FDA on December 3, 2009. FDA is currently evaluating the submission, 

and as of March 16, 2012, has not completed the consultation. 

Bayer CropScience has presented data on the food and feed safety of FG72 soybean, evaluating 

the agronomic and morphological characteristics of FG72 soybean, including compositional and 

nutritional characteristics, safety evaluations, and toxicity tests, as compared to a conventional 

soybean variety (Bayer, 2011c). Compositional elements, including proximate and fiber 

components, amino acid and fatty acid content, and antinutrients and isoflavone concentrations, 

revealed no substantial differences between FG72 soybean and conventional soybean varieties

(Bayer, 2011c). As discussed in Section 4.4 and 4.6, the data collected indicate there is no 

difference in the composition and nutritional quality of FG72 soybean compared with 

conventional soybean varieties, apart from the presence of the 2mEPSPS and HPPD W336 

proteins. Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) also determined that FG72 soybean 
66

are compositionally similar to conventional soybean, thus suggesting that FG72 soybean is 

unlikely result in an effect on threatened and endangered animal species (FSANZ, 2011a, 

2011b). The results presented by Bayer CropScience show that the incorporation of the 2mepsps

and hppd w336 genes and the accompanying activity of the 2mEPSPS and HPPD W336 proteins 

in FG72 soybean does not result in any biologically-meaningful differences between FG72

soybean and non-GE hybrids. 

Because there is no toxicity or allergenicity potential with FG72 soybean, there would be no 

direct or indirect toxicity or allergenicity impacts on wildlife species that feed on soybean or the 

associated biological food chain of organisms. Therefore, based on these analyses, APHIS 

concludes that consumption of FG72 soybean plant parts (seeds, leaves, stems, pollen, or roots) 

would have no effect on any listed threatened or endangered animal species or animal species 

proposed for listing.

After reviewing the possible effects of allowing the environmental release of FG72 soybean, 

APHIS has not identified any stressor that could affect the reproduction, numbers, or distribution 

of a listed TES or species proposed for listing. APHIS also considered the potential effect of a 

determination of nonregulated status of FG72 soybean on designated critical habitat or habitat 

proposed for designation, and could identify no differences from effects that would occur from 

the production of other soybean varieties. Soybean is not considered a particularly competitive 

plant species and has been selected for domestication and cultivation under conditions not 

normally found in natural settings (OECD, 2001, 2010). Soybean is not sexually compatible 

with, or serves as a host species for, any listed species or species proposed for listing. 

Consumption of FG72 soybean by any listed species or species proposed for listing will not 

result in a toxic or allergic reaction. Based on these factors, APHIS has concluded that a 

determination of nonregulated status of FG72 soybean, and the corresponding environmental 

release of this soybean variety will have no effect on listed species or species proposed for 

listing, and would not affect designated habitat or habitat proposed for designation. Because of 

this no effect determination, consultation under Section 7(a)(2) of the Act or the concurrences of 

the USFWS or NMFS are not required.

6.2 Potential Effects of the use of Glyphosate and Isoxaflutole

APHIS met with USFWS officials on June 15, 2011, to discuss whether APHIS has any 

obligations under the ESA regarding analyzing the impacts of herbicide use associated with all 

GE crops on TES. As a result of these joint discussions, USFWS and APHIS have agreed that it 

is not necessary for APHIS to perform an ESA effects analysis on herbicide use associated with 

GE crops currently planted because EPA has both regulatory authority over the labeling of 

pesticides and the necessary technical expertise to assess pesticide effects on the environment 

under FIFRA. APHIS has no statutory authority to authorize or regulate the use of glyphosate

and IFT, or any other herbicide, by soybean growers. Under APHIS’ current Part 340 

regulations, APHIS only has the authority to regulate FG72 soybean or any GE organism as long 

as APHIS believes it may pose a plant pest risk. For GE organisms, APHIS has no regulatory

jurisdiction over any other risks associated with GE organisms including risks resulting from the 

use of herbicides or other pesticides on those organisms. Nevertheless, APHIS is aware that 

there may be potential environmental impacts resulting from the use of glyphosate and IFT on 

FG72 soybean, including potential impacts on TES and critical habitat, based on assessments 
67

performed by the EPA and as available in the peer reviewed scientific literature. APHIS is 

providing the available information of potential environmental impacts resulting from glyphosate

and IFT use on FG72 soybean below.

Endangered Species Protection Program

In 1988, Congress enacted Public Law 100-478 (October 7, 1988) to in part address the 

relationship between ESA and EPA’s pesticide labeling program (Section 1010), which required 

EPA to conduct a study, and report to Congress, on ways to implement EPA’s endangered 

species pesticide labeling program in a manner that both complies with ESA and allows people 

to continue production of agricultural food and fiber. This law provided a clear sense that 

Congress wanted EPA to fulfill its obligation to conserve listed species, while at the same time 

consider the needs of agriculture and other pesticide users (211 FR 66392). 

In 1988, EPA established the Endangered Species Protection Program (ESPP) to meet its 

obligations under the ESA. EPA’s ESPP site2describes the EPA assessment process for 

endangered species. Some of the elements of that process, as reported on the website, are 

summarized below. The goal of EPA's ESPP is to carry out its FIFRA responsibilities in 

compliance with the ESA, without placing unnecessary burden on agriculture and other pesticide 

users consistent with Congress’ intent.

EPA is responsible for reviewing pesticide information and data to determine whether a pesticide 

product may be registered for a particular use, including those uses associated with the approval 

of biotechnology products. As part of that determination, the Agency assesses whether listed 

endangered or threatened species or their designated critical habitat may be affected by use of the 

pesticide product. All pesticide products that EPA determines “may affect” a listed species or its 

designated critical habitat may be subject to the ESPP. If limitations on pesticide use are 

necessary to protect listed species in areas where a pesticide may be used, the information is 

related through Endangered Species Protection Bulletins. Bulletins identify the species of 

concern and the pesticide active ingredient that may affect the listed species. They also provide 

a description of the measures necessary to protect the species and contain a county-level map 

showing the geographic area(s) associated with the protection measures, depending on the 

susceptibility of the species. Bulletins are enforceable as part of the product label (EPA, 2011a).

EPA TES Evaluation Process

EPA evaluates listed species and their critical habitat concerns within the context of pesticide 

registration and registration review so that when a decision is made, it fully addresses issues 

relative to listed species protection. If a risk assessment determines that use limitations are 

necessary to ensure that legal use of a pesticide will not harm listed species or their critical 

habitat, EPA may either change the terms of the pesticide registration or establish geographically 

specific pesticide use limitations (EPA, 2011a). The use of any pesticide in a manner that may

kill or otherwise harm an endangered species or adversely modify their habitat is a violation of 

federal law. Pesticides must be used in accordance with the restrictions specified on their 

product labels.

 

2

http://www.epa.gov/espp/
68

EPA’s review of the pesticide and its registration decision is independent of APHIS’ review and 

regulatory decisions under 7 CFR 340. EPA does not require data or analyses conducted by 

APHIS to complete its reviews. EPA evaluates extensive toxicity, ecological effects data, and 

environmental fate, transport and behavior data, most of which is required under FIFRA data 

requirements, to assess and determine how a pesticide will move through and break down in the 

environment. Risks to various taxa, e.g., birds, fish, invertebrates, plants and mammals are 

routinely assessed and used in EPA’s determinations of whether a pesticide may be licensed for 

use in the U.S.

EPA’s core pesticide risk assessment and regulatory processes ensure that protections are in 

place for all populations of non-target species, not just threatened and endangered species. EPA 

has developed a comprehensive risk assessment process modeled after, and consistent with, 

EPA’s numerous guidelines for environmental assessments (EPA, 2004). The result of an 

assessment, which may go through several refinements, is to determine whether the potential 

effects of a pesticide’s registration to a listed species will result in either a “no effect” or “may

affect” determination. EPA consults on determinations that “may affect” a listed species or 

adversely modify its critical habitat (EPA, 2012a). As a result of either an assessment or 

consultation, EPA may require changes to the use conditions specified on the label of the 

product. When such changes are necessary only in specific geographic areas rather than 

nationwide to ensure protection of the listed species, EPA implements these changes through 

geographically-specific Endangered Species Protection Bulletins, otherwise, these changes are 

applied to the label for all uses of the pesticide.

Ecological Risks of Glyphosate and Isoxaflutole

Glyphosate and IFT are registered by the EPA for use in a variety of crops, including soybean 

(EPA, 2009c, 2011b). Pursuant to FIFRA Section 3(g), EPA is currently conducting registration 

reviews for both glyphosate and IFT to ensure continuing fulfillment of FIFRA registration 

standards. EPA implements its reregistration eligibility decisions via product reregistration by

confirming that required risk reduction measures are reflected on pesticide product labels. The 

EPA registration reviews for glyphosate and IFT are scheduled to be completed in 2014 and 

2017, respectively (EPA, 2009c, 2011b).

Glyphosate is a non-selective, phosphonomethyl amino acid herbicide that is widely used to 

control weeds in agricultural and non-agricultural sites, including forestry, greenhouse, and 

residential land. Glyphosate was first registered in 1974, and is currently registered for a variety 

of aquatic and terrestrial uses on fruits, vegetables, and field crops (EPA, 2009a). The effects for 

glyphosate are summarized in the RED fact sheet and the preliminary problem formulation for 

the herbicide (EPA, 1993, 2009c). 

IFT was conditionally registered on September 15, 1998. The conditional registration was 

extended on April 11, 2002 and unconditionally registered on October 8, 2004 (Montague, 

2012). IFT is currently registered as a Restricted Use Pesticide due to non-target phytotoxicity

concerns. In contrast to General Use Pesticides, IFT must be applied by or under the supervision 

of a certified applicator. At present, EPA is conducting a registration review for IFT (EPA, 

2010c). The results of multiple ecological and human-health risk assessments may be found in 

Appendix A. In summary, risk to aquatic plants, birds, mammals, invertebrates, and fish were 
69

below the EPA level of concern (LOC). Additionally, the EPA human-health risk assessment 

determined that there is no unreasonable dietary risk surrounding IFT residues at its established 

tolerances (EPA, 2011b).
70

7 CONSIDERATION OF EXECUTIVE ORDERS, STANDARDS, AND TREATIES 

RELATING TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

7.1 Executive Orders with Domestic Implications

The following executive orders require consideration of the potential impacts of the Federal 

action to various segments of the population.

 Executive Order (EO) 12898 (US-NARA, 2010), "Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,"

requires Federal agencies to conduct their programs, policies, and activities that 

substantially affect human health or the environment in a manner so as not to exclude 

persons and populations from participation in or benefiting from such programs. It 

also enforces existing statutes to prevent minority and low-income communities from 

being subjected to disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects. 

 EO 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks,” acknowledges that children may suffer disproportionately from 

environmental health and safety risks because of their developmental stage, greater 

metabolic activity levels, and behavior patterns, as compared to adults. The EO (to 

the extent permitted by law and consistent with the agency’s mission) requires each 

Federal agency to identify, assess, and address environmental health risks and safety 

risks that may disproportionately affect children.

The No Action and Preferred Alternatives were analyzed with respect to EO 12898 and EO 

13045. Neither alternative is expected to have a disproportionate adverse effect on minorities, 

low-income populations, or children. 

Available mammalian toxicity data associated with the 2mEPSPS and HPPD W336 proteins 

establish the safety of FG72 soybean and its products to humans, including minorities, lowincome populations, and children who might be exposed to them through agricultural production 

and/or processing. No additional safety precautions would need to be taken. 

Based on the information submitted by the applicant and reviewed by APHIS, FG72 soybean is 

agronomically, phenotypically, and biochemically comparable to conventional soybean except 

for the introduced 2mEPSPS and HPPD W336 proteins. The information provided in the Bayer 

CropScience petition indicates that the two proteins, 2mEPSPS and HPPD W336, expressed in 

FG72 soybean are not expected to be allergenic, toxic, or pathogenic in mammals (Bayer, 2011c; 

Rouquié et al., 2010). Bayer CropScience initiated the consultation process with FDA for the 

commercial distribution of FG72 soybean and submitted a safety and nutritional assessment of 

food and feed derived from FG72 soybean to the FDA on December 3, 2009. FDA is currently 

evaluating the submission, and as of March 16, 2012, has not completed the consultation. 

Human toxicity has also been evaluated by the EPA in its development of pesticide labels for 

both herbicides (62 FR 17723; 76 FR 235). Pesticide labels include use precautions and 
71

restrictions intended to protect workers and their families from exposures. It is reasonable to 

assume that growers will adhere to these EPA herbicide use precautions and restrictions. As 

discussed in Subsection 4.5, Human Health, the potential use of glyphosate and IFT on FG72 

soybean at the proposed application rates would be no more than rates currently approved by the 

EPA and should not to have adverse impacts to human health when used in accordance with 

label instructions. It is expected that EPA would monitor the use of FG72 soybean to determine 

impacts on agricultural practices, such as chemical use, as they have done previously for 

herbicide-tolerant products.

Based on these factors, a determination of nonregulated status of FG72 soybean is not expected 

to have a disproportionate adverse effect on minorities, low-income populations, or children.

The following executive order addresses Federal responsibilities regarding the introduction and 

effects of invasive species:

EO 1311 (US-NARA, 2010), “Invasive Species,” states that Federal agencies take 

action to prevent the introduction of invasive species, to provide for their control, 

and to minimize the economic, ecological, and human health impacts that 

invasive species cause. 

Soybean is not listed in the U.S. as a noxious weed species by the Federal government (ASA, 

2011), nor is it listed as an invasive species by major invasive plant data bases. Cultivated 

soybean seed does not usually exhibit dormancy and requires specific environmental conditions 

to grow as a volunteer the following year (OECD, 2010). Any volunteers that may become 

established do not compete well with the planted crop and are easily managed using standard 

weed control practices. Soybean does not possess characteristics such as the tolerance for a 

variety of habitat conditions, rapid growth and reproduction, aggressive competition for 

resources, and the lack of natural enemies or pests (USDA-APHIS, 2012b) that would make it a 

successful invasive plant. Non-engineered soybeans, as well as other herbicide-tolerant soybean 

varieties, are widely grown in the U.S. Based on historical experience with these varieties and 

the data submitted by the applicant and reviewed by APHIS, FG72 soybean plants are 

sufficiently similar in fitness characteristics to other soybean varieties currently grown and are 

not expected to become weedy or invasive.

The following executive order requires the protection of migratory bird populations:

EO 13186 (US-NARA, 2010), “Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect 

Migratory Birds,” states that federal agencies taking actions that have, or are 

likely to have, a measurable negative effect on migratory bird populations are 

directed to develop and implement, within two years, a Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) with the Fish and Wildlife Service that shall promote the 

conservation of migratory bird populations. 

Migratory birds may be found in soybean fields. While soybean does not meet the nutritional 

requirements for many migratory birds (Krapu et al., 2004), they may forage for insects and 

weed seeds found in and adjacent to soybean fields. As discussed in Sections 4.4.1 and 4.6, data 

submitted by the applicant has shown no difference in compositional and nutritional quality 
72

of FG72 soybean compared with other conventional soybean, apart from the presence of the 

2mEPSPS and HPPD W336 proteins. FG72 soybean is not expected to be allergenic, toxic, or 

pathogenic in mammals. Both 2mEPSPS and HPPD proteins have a history of safe consumption 

in the context of other food and feeds (Bayer, 2011c). Based on APHIS’ assessment of FG72 

soybean, it is unlikely that a determination of nonregulated status of FG72 soybean would have a 

negative effect on migratory bird populations.

The environmental effects associated with IFT have been analyzed by the EPA (EPA, 2011b, 

2011d). Testing indicates that ecological toxicity of IFT does not exceed the agency’s acute or 

chronic level of concern. Glyphosate is considered no more than slightly nontoxic to birds

(EPA, 1993). Based on these factors, it is unlikely that the determination of nonregulated status 

of FG72 soybean would have a negative effect on migratory bird populations.

7.2 International Implications

EO 12114 (US-NARA, 2010), “Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions”

requires federal officials to take into consideration any potential environmental effects outside 

the U.S., its territories, and possessions that result from actions being taken. 

APHIS has given this EO careful consideration and does not expect a significant environmental 

impact outside the U.S. in the event of a determination of nonregulated status of FG72 soybean. 

All existing national and international regulatory authorities and phytosanitary regimes that 

currently apply to introductions of new soybean cultivars internationally apply equally to those 

covered by an APHIS determination of nonregulated status under 7 CFR part 340. 

Any international trade of FG72 soybean subsequent to a determination of nonregulated status of 

the product would be fully subject to national phytosanitary requirements and be in accordance 

with phytosanitary standards developed under the International Plant Protection Convention 

(IPPC, 2010). The purpose of the IPPC “is to secure a common and effective action to prevent 

the spread and introduction of pests of plants and plant products and to promote appropriate 

measures for their control” (IPPC, 2010). The protection it affords extends to natural flora and 

plant products and includes both direct and indirect damage by pests, including weeds. 

The IPPC establishes a standard for the reciprocal acceptance of phytosanitary certification 

among the nations that have signed or acceded to the Convention (172 countries as of March 

2010). In April 2004, a standard for PRA of living modified organisms (LMOs) was adopted at 

a meeting of the governing body of the IPPC as a supplement to an existing standard, 

International Standard for Phytosanitary Measure No. 11 (ISPM-11, Pest Risk Analysis for 

Quarantine Pests). The standard acknowledges that all LMOs will not present a pest risk and 

that a determination needs to be made early in the PRA for importation as to whether the LMO 

poses a potential pest risk resulting from the genetic modification. APHIS pest risk assessment 

procedures for genetically engineered organisms are consistent with the guidance developed 

under the IPPC. In addition, issues that may relate to commercialization and transboundary

movement of particular agricultural commodities produced through biotechnology are being 

addressed in other international forums and through national regulations.
73

The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety is a treaty under the United Nations Convention on 

Biological Diversity (CBD) that established a framework for the safe transboundary movement, 

with respect to the environment and biodiversity, of LMOs, which include those modified 

through biotechnology. The Protocol came into force on September 11, 2003, and 160 countries 

are Parties to it as of December 2010 (CBD, 2010). Although the U.S. is not a party to the CBD, 

and thus not a party to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, U.S. exporters will still need to 

comply with those regulations that importing countries which are Parties to the Protocol have 

promulgated to comply with their obligations. The first intentional transboundary movement of 

LMOs intended for environmental release (field trials or commercial planting) will require 

consent from the importing country under an advanced informed agreement (AIA) provision, 

which includes a requirement for a risk assessment consistent with Annex III of the Protocol and 

the required documentation.

LMOs imported for food, feed, or processing (FFP) are exempt from the AIA procedure, and are 

covered under Article 11 and Annex II of the Protocol. Under Article 11, Parties must post 

decisions to the Biosafety Clearinghouse database on domestic use of LMOs for FFP that may be 

subject to transboundary movement. To facilitate compliance with obligations to this protocol, 

the U.S. Government has developed a website that provides the status of all regulatory reviews 

completed for different uses of bioengineered products (NBII, 2010). 

APHIS continues to work toward harmonization of biosafety and biotechnology consensus 

documents, guidelines, and regulations, including within the North American Plant Protection 

Organization (NAPPO), which includes Mexico, Canada, and the U.S., and within the 

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). NAPPO has completed 

three modules of the Regional Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (RSPM) No. 14, 

Importation and Release into the Environment of Transgenic Plants in NAPPO Member 

Countries (NAPPO, 2009).

APHIS also participates in the North American Biotechnology Initiative (NABI), a forum for 

information exchange and cooperation on agricultural biotechnology issues for the U.S., Mexico, 

and Canada. In addition, bilateral discussions on biotechnology regulatory issues are held 

regularly with other countries including Argentina, Brazil, Japan, China, and Korea.

7.3 Compliance with Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act

This EA evaluated the potential changes in soybean production associated with a determination 

of nonregulated status of FG72 soybean (Section 4.2) and determined that the cultivation of 

FG72 soybean would not lead to the increased production or acreage of soybean in U.S. 

agriculture. The herbicide tolerance conferred by the genetic modification to FG72 soybean 

would not result in any changes in water usage for cultivation. As discussed in Section 4.3.2 and 

4.3.3, there are no expected negative impacts to water resources or air quality from potential use 

of glyphosate or IFT associated with FG72 soybean production. Based on these analyses, 

APHIS concludes that a determination of nonregulated status of FG72 soybean would comply 

with the CWA and the CAA.
74

7.4 Impacts on Unique Characteristics of Geographic Areas

A determination of nonregulated status of FG72 soybean is not expected to impact unique 

characteristics of geographic areas such as park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and 

scenic areas, or ecologically critical areas.

Bayer CropScience has presented results of agronomic field trials for FG72 soybean. The results 

of these field trials demonstrate that there are no differences in agronomic practices between 

FG72 and conventional soybean. The common agricultural practices that would be carried out in 

the cultivation FG72 soybean are not expected to deviate from current practices, including the 

use of EPA-registered pesticides. The product is expected to be deployed on agricultural land 

currently suitable for production of soybean and replace existing varieties, and is not expected to 

increase the acreage of soybean production. 

There are no proposed major ground disturbances; no new physical destruction or damage to 

property; no alterations of property, wildlife habitat, or landscapes; and no prescribed sale, lease, 

or transfer of ownership of any property. This action is limited to a determination of 

nonregulated status of FG72 soybean. This action would not convert land use to nonagricultural 

use and, therefore, would have no adverse impact on prime farmland. Standard agricultural 

practices for land preparation, planting, irrigation, and harvesting of plants would be used on 

agricultural lands planted to FG72 soybean, including the use of EPA-registered pesticides. The 

Applicant’s adherence to EPA label use restrictions for all pesticides is expected to mitigate 

potential impacts to the human environment.

With regard to pesticide use, a determination of nonregulated status of FG72 soybean is likely to 

result in changes to the use of IFT on soybean. The potential changes in herbicide use are 

discussed in Section 4.2.2. IFT is currently registered by the EPA as a restricted use pesticide in 

soybean and other crops. APHIS assumes that the EPA label would provide for label use 

restrictions intended to mitigate potential impacts to the human environment, including potential 

impacts to unique geographic areas. As noted above, APHIS further assumes that the grower 

will closely adhere to EPA label use restrictions for all pesticides.

Potential impacts to geographic areas have been considered by the EPA in its evaluation of IFT. 

IFT is currently under registration review by the EPA (EPA, 2011b). With regard to the current 

registration, EPA conducted both human and environmental risk assessments. Although some 

risks were identified, the EPA determined that these risks could be mitigated by implementing 

label use restrictions (EPA, 1997, 2011c, 2011d, 2012b). Additional details regarding the current 

status of the EPA registration review for IFT may be found in Appendix A. 

All pesticides distributed or sold in the U.S. are subject to registration by the EPA under 

authority of FIFRA. Glyphosate was first registered for use by the EPA in 1974, and has been 

assessed several times since then by the EPA and other Federal Agencies (EPA, 2009c). At 

present, glyphosate is currently undergoing registration review by the EPA; in 1993, EPA 

determined that all currently registered pesticide products containing glyphosate would not pose 
75

unreasonable risks or adverse effects to humans or the environment, thus permitting its eligibility

for the EPA pesticide reregistration program (EPA, 2009c). A preliminary problem formulation 

has been conducted as part of the registration review of glyphosate by the EPA, identifying what 

is currently known and uncertainty regarding the ecological risk, environmental fate, endangered 

species, and drinking water assessment of glyphosate and its transformation products (EPA, 

2009c). EPA produced an estimated timeline for the completion of the glyphosate registration 

review, with a final decision due in 2015 (EPA, 2009a). Submittals that are relevant to the EPA 

registration review of glyphosate can be submitted under the docket designation EPA-HQ-2009-

0361 at the Regulations.gov website. 

Based on these findings, including the assumption that EPA label use instructions are in place to 

protect unique geographic areas and that those label use instructions are adhered to, a 

determination of nonregulated status of FG72 soybean is not expected to impact unique 

characteristics of geographic areas such as park lands, prime farm lands, wetlands, wild and 

scenic areas, or ecologically critical areas.

7.5 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as Amended

The NHPA of 1966 and its implementing regulations (36 CFR 800) require Federal agencies to: 

1) determine whether activities they propose constitute "undertakings" that have the potential to 

cause effects on historic properties and 2) if so, to evaluate the effects of such undertakings on 

such historic resources and consult with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (i.e., 

State Historic Preservation Office, Tribal Historic Preservation Officers), as appropriate. 

APHIS’ proposed action, a determination of nonregulated status of FG72 soybean is not 

expected to adversely impact cultural resources on tribal properties. Any farming activity that

may be taken by farmers on tribal lands would only be conducted at the tribe’s request; thus, the 

tribes would have control over any potential conflict with cultural resources on tribal properties.

APHIS’ Preferred Alternative would have no impact on districts, sites, highways, structures, or 

objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, nor would it 

likely cause any loss or destruction of scientific, cultural, or historical resources. This action is 

limited to a determination of non-regulated status of FG72 soybean. 

APHIS’ proposed action is not an undertaking that may directly or indirectly cause alteration in 

the character or use of historic properties protected under the NHPA. In general, common 

agricultural activities conducted under this action do not have the potential to introduce visual, 

atmospheric, or noise elements to areas in which they are used that could result in effects on the 

character or use of historic properties. For example, there is potential for increased noise on the 

use and enjoyment of a historic property during the operation of tractors and other mechanical 

equipment close to such sites. A built-in mitigating factor for this issue is that virtually all of the 

methods involved would only have temporary effects on the audible nature of a site and can be 

ended at any time to restore the audible qualities of such sites to their original condition with no 

further adverse effects. Additionally, these cultivation practices are already being conducted 

throughout the soybean production regions. The cultivation of FG72 soybean is not expected to 

change any of these agronomic practices that would result in an adverse impact under the NHPA.
76

8 LIST OF PREPARERS

Biotechnology Regulatory Services

David Reinhold, 

Assistant Director, Environmental 

Risks Analysis Programs

USDA APHIS

Khamkeo Vongpaseuth, Ph.D.,

Environmental Protection 

Specialist, Environmental Risks 

Analysis Programs

USDA APHIS

Michael Blanchette, 

Senior Environmental Protection 

Specialist, Environmental Risks 

Analysis Programs

USDA APHIS

Joseph Vorgetts, Ph.D.,

Environmental Protection 

Specialist, Environmental Risks 

Analysis Programs

USDA APHIS
77

9 REFERENCES

"Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology," 51 FR (June 26, 1986), pp 23302.

"Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties," 57 FR (May 29, 1992), pp 

22984.

"Glyphosate: Pesticide Tolerances," 62 FR 70 (Aprill 11, 1997), pp 17723.

"Mesotrione, Pesticide Tolerances," 74 FR 242 (December 18, 2009), pp 67119.

"Isoxaflutole: Pesticide Tolerances," 76 FR 235 (December 7, 2011), pp 76309.

"Endangered Species Protection Program Field Implementation," 70 FR 211 (November 2, 

2005), pp 66392.

Al-Kaisi M, Hanna M, and Tidman M. (2003) Crop Rotation Considerations for 2004 

Management Season Rotation. Integrated Crop Management. Retrieved November, 2011 

from http://www.ipm.iastate.edu/ipm/icm/2003/12-15-2003/croprotation.html.

Altieri M. (1999) The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems. Agriculture, Ecosystems 

and Environment, 74(1-3), 19-31.

Aneja V, Schlesinger W, and Erisman J. (2009) Effects of Agriculture upon the Air Quality and 

Climate: Research, Policy, and Regulations. Environmental Science & Technology, 

43(12), 4234-4240.

AOSCA. (2010) General IP Protocols Standards. The Association of Official Seed Certifying 

Agencies. Retrieved November 8, 2010 from 

http://www.identitypreserved.com/handbook/aosca-general.htm.

AOSCA. (2011) A Report of the National Soybean Variety Review Board. Association of Seed 

Certifying Agencies. Retrieved November, 2011 from 

http://www.aosca.org/VarietyReviewBoards/Soybean/2011SoybeanReport_Final.pdf.

APAG. (2011) Fatty Acids & Glycerine: Major Production Routes Starting from Vegetable & 

Animal Oils and Fats. The European Oleochemicals and Allied Products Group. 

Retrieved December, 2011 from http://www.apag.org/oleo/fats.htm.

Aref S and Pike D. (1998) Midwest Farmers' Perceptions of Crop Pest Infestation. Agronomy 

Journal, 90(6), 819-825.

ASA. (2011) 2011 Soystats Homepage. Retrieved November, 2011 from American Soybean 

Association http://www.soystats.com/2011/.

Baker J, Koenning S, Van Duyn J, York A, and Toth S. (2005a) Crop Profile for Soybeans in 

North Carolina. National Information System for the Regional IPM Centers. Retrieved 

November, 2011 from http://www.ipmcenters.org/CropProfiles/docs/NCsoybeans.pdf.

Baker J, Southard R, and Mitchell J. (2005b) Agricultural Dust Production in Standard and 

Conservation Tillage Systems in the San Joaquin Valley. Journal of Enviromental 

Quality, 34(4), 1260-1269.

Baker JM, Ochsner TE, Venterea RT, and Griffis TJ. (2007) Tillage and soil carbon 

sequestration—What do we really know? Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 

118(1-4), 1-5.

Bale JS, Masters GJ, Hodkinson ID, Awmack C, Bezemer TM, Brown VK, Butterfield J, Buse 

A, Coulson JC, Farrar J, Good JEG, Harrington R, Hartley S, Jones TH, Lindroth RL, 

Press MC, Symrnioudis I, Watt AD, and Whittaker JB. (2002) Herbivory in global 

climate change research: direct effects of rising temperature on insect herbivores. Global 

Change Biology, 8(1), 1-16.
78

Barrentine W. (1989) Minimum Effective Rate of Chlorimuron and Imazaquin Applied to 

Common Cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium). Weed Technology, 3(1), 126-130.

Bay News. (2011) Alternative Mode of Action for Herbicide Tolerance Now in Co-development 

by Bayer CropScience and Syngenta. The Bayer Press Server. Retrieved March, 2012 

from http://www.press.bayer.com/baynews/baynews.nsf/id/Alternative-action-herbicidetolerance-co-development-Bayer-CropScience-Syngenta.

Bayer. (2011a) Balance PRO Herbicide Registration. Bayer CropScience. Retrieved January, 

2012 from http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/ppls/000264-00600-

20111107.pdf.

Bayer. (2011b) Bayer Balance PRO. Bayer CropScience. Retrieved January, 2012 from 

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/ppls/000264-00600-20110103.pdf.

Bayer. (2011c) Petition for the Determination of Nonregulated Status for Event FG72. Submitted 

by Isabelle S. Coats, Regulatory Affairs Manager. Bayer Crop Science (See Table: 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/not_reg.html).

Beltrán E, Fenet H, Cooper J-F, and Coste C-M. (2002) Fate of Isoxaflutole in Soil under 

Controlled Conditions. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 51(1), 146-151.

Benbrook C. (2009) Crops on Pesticide Use in the United States: The First Thirteen Years. The 

Organic Center. Retrieved from http://www.organiccenter.org/reportfiles/GE13YearsReport.pdf.

Beuerlein J. (2005) 2005 Ohio Innoculation Study. Ohio State University. Retrieved November 

2011, from http://agcrops.osu.edu/specialists/soybean/current-researchprojects/2005SoyInoculationReport.pdf.

Bonnet J, Bonnemoy F, Dusser M, and Bohatier J. (2008) Toxicity Assessment of the Herbicides 

Sulcotrione and Mesotrione Toward Two Reference Environmental Microorganisms: 

Tetrahymena pyriformis and Vibrio fischeri. Archives of Environmental Contamination 

and Toxicology, 55(4), 576-583.

Bonny S. (2011) Herbicide-tolerant Transgenic Soybean over 15 Years of Cultivation: Pesticide 

Use, Weed Resistance, and Some Economic Issues. The Case of the USA. Sustainability, 

3, 1302-1322.

Bradford K. (2006) Methods to Maintain Genetic Purity of Seed Stocks. Agricultural 

Biotechnology in California Series Publication 8189. Retrieved March, 2012 from 

http://ucanr.org/freepubs/docs/8189.pdf.

Cahoon E. (2003) Genetic enhancement of soybean oil for industrial uses: Prospects and 

challenges. AgBioForum. Retrieved December 2011, from 

http://www.aseanfood.info/Articles/11013538.pdf.

Cargill. (2011) Oils for healthy solutions. Food ingredients. Blends. Cargill. Retrieved 

December, 2011 from http://www.cargill.com/food/na/en/products/oils-shortenings/oilsfor-healthy-solutions/solutions/blends/index.jsp.

Carpenter J and Gianessi L. (1999) Herbicide-Tolerant Soybeans: Why Farmers are Adopting 

Round-up Ready Varieties. National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Retrieved 2011 

November, from http://agbioforum.org/v2n2/v2n2a02-carpenter.htm.

Caviness CE. (1966) Estimates of Natural Crosspollination in Jackson Soybeans in Arkansas. 

Crop Science, 6(2), 211-212.

CBD. (2010) The Cartegena Protocol on Biosafety Convention on Biological Diversity. 

Retrieved March, 2012 from http://www.cbd.int/biosafety/.
79

CCSP. (2008) The Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, Land Resources, Water Resources, 

and Biodiversity in the United States (U.S. Climate Change Science Program Synthesis 

and Assessment Product 4.3). The U.S. Climate Change Science Program. Retrieved 

October, 2011 from http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap4-3/finalreport/Synthesis_SAP_4.3.pdf.

CCSP. (2009) Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. U.S. Global Change 

Research Program.

CFIA. (1998) Decision Document 1999-33: Determination of the Safety of Monsanto Canada 

Inc.'s Roundup ReadyTM Corn(Zea mays L.) Line GA21 Canadian Food Inspection 

Agency. Retrieved November, 2011 from http://cera-gmc.org/docs/decdocs/01-290-

060.pdf.

CFIA. (2011) Government of Canada - Biotechnology Notices of Submission. Canadian Food 

Inspection Agency. Retrieved November, 2011 from 

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/plaveg/bio/subs/subliste.shtml.

Clarkson L. (2007) Statement of the President of Clarkson Grain Co., Inc. Subcommittee on 

Horticulture and Organic Agriculture—Public Hearing. Retrieved April, 2012 from 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=witness%20opening%20statements%20house

%20committee%20on%20agriculture%20lynn%20clarkson&source=web&cd=4&ved=0

CDgQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fagriculture.house.gov%2Ftestimony%2F110%2Fh7

0418%2FLClarkson.doc&ei=fwGMT_SbJ6Ge2QWT98DpCQ&usg=AFQjCNFLQonZN

OYhlZjsQjhTqj73i9PQlA.

Coates I. (2012, Feb 2.) Personal Communication.

Cook E, Bartlein P, Diffenbaugh N, Seager R, Shuman B, Webb R, Williams J, and Woodhouse 

C. (2008) Hydrological Variability and Change. The U.S. Climate Change Science 

Program.

Crouzet O, Besse-Hoggan P, Batisson I, Bonnemoy F, Bohatier J, and Mallet C. (2009) 

Responses of Soil Microorganisms to the Herbicide Mesotrione in Microcosm 

Experiments: From the Whole Micorbial Community to Functional Groups. Retrieved 

March, 2012 from http://www.yorkpesticides2009.com/platforms/P12_Crouzet.pdf.

CTIC. (2008) 2008 Amendment to the National Crop Residue Management Survey Summary. 

Conservation Technology Information Center. Retrieved November, 2011 from 

http://www.ctic.purdue.edu/media/pdf/National%20Summary%202008%20(Amendment

).pdf.

CTIC. (2010) Facilitating Conservation Farming Practices and Enhancing Environmental 

Sustainability with Agricultural Biotechnology. Conservation Technology Information 

Center. Retrieved March, 2012 from 

http://www.improveagriculture.com/uploads/files/BiotechFinal2.pdf.

Dalley C, Renner K, and Kells J. (2001) Weed Competition in Roundup Ready Soybeans and 

Corn. Retrieved from 

http://web1.msue.edu/iac/434/weedcompetitioninroundupreadysoycorn.pdf.

DATCP. (2002) Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Use of Pesticides Containing 

Isoxaflutole in Wisconsin. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade 

and Consumer Protection Water Quality Section. Retrieved January, 2012 from 

http://www.midwestadvocates.org/archive/DATCPisoxaflutole/EIS_Final_17.pdf.

Dill GM. (2005) Glyphosate-resistant crops: history, status and future. Pest Management 

Science, 61(3), 219-224.
80

Doran JW, Sarrantonio M, and Liebig MA. (1996) Soil Health and Sustainability. In, Advances 

in Agronomy (pp. 1-54). LS Donald (Ed.): Academic Press.

EFSA. (2011a) Request for Authorization of Herbicide Tolerant Genetically Modified Soybean 

FG72 for food and feed uses, and import and processing, in accordance with articles 5 

and 17 of Regulation (EC) N° 1829/2003 GM Food and GM Feed. European Food Safety 

Authority.

EFSA. (2011b) Request for Authorization of Herbicide Tolerant Genetically Modified Soybean 

FG72 for Food, Feed Uses, and Import and Processing, in Accordance with Articles 5 

and 17 of Regulation (EC) N° 1829/2003 GM Food and GM Feed. Belgium: European 

Food and Safety Authority.

EIA. (2007) Biofuels in the US Transportation Sector. United States Energy Information 

Administration. Retrieved 2011 November, from 

http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/biomass.html.

Eileen J K. (2001) Tillage systems and soil ecology. Soil and Tillage Research, 61(1–2), 61-76.

EPA. (1993) R.E.D. Facts - Glyphosate. Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved Match, 

2012 from http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/factsheets/0178fact.pdf.

EPA. (1997) Isoxaflutole: Review of Eco-Toxicity Studies for New Chemical Registration. 

Enviromental Protection Agency. Retrieved December, 2011 from 

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/cleared_reviews/csr_PC-123000_1-Apr97_059.pdf.

EPA. (1998) EPA Fact Sheet - Isoxaflutole. Enviromental Protection Agency. Retrieved 

November, 2011 from http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/factsheets/isoxaflutole.pdf.

EPA. (2001a) Drinking Water Assessment for Isoxaflutole. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Retrieved February, 2012 from 

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/cleared_reviews/csr_PC123000_undated_001.pdf.

EPA. (2001b) Pesticide Fact Sheet - Mesotrione. Environmental Protection Agency.

EPA. (2002) Isoxaflutole Monitoring Data from Missouri: Update on Reservoirs. Environmental 

Protection Agency.

EPA. (2004) Overview of the Ecological Risk Assessment Process in the Office of Pesticide 

Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Endangered and Threatened Species 

Effects Determinations. Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved March, 2012 from 

http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/endanger/consultation/ecorisk-overview.pdf.

EPA. (2005) Protecting Water Quality from Agricultural Runoff. Environmental Protection 

Agency. Retrieved November, 2011 from 

http://www.epa.gov/owow/NPS/Ag_Runoff_Fact_Sheet.pdf.

EPA. (2007) Regulatory Impact Analysis: Renewable Fuel Standard Program - Chapter 8 

Agricultural Sector Impacts. EPA420-R-07-004. Retrieved November, 2011 from 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/420r07004chap8.pdf.

EPA. (2008) Ecological Risk Assessment for Experimental Use Permit (DP Barcode 354510) 

and Section 3 New Use (DP Barcode 357888) Registrations for use of Mesotrione on 

Soybeans. Environmental Protection Agency.

EPA. (2009a) Glyphosate Final Work Plan. Environmental Protection Agency.

EPA. (2009b) Mesotrione: Human-Health Risk Assessment for Section 3 New Use on Soybeans. 

Environmental Protection Agency.
81

EPA. (2009c) Registration Review- Preliminary Problem Formulation for the Ecological Risk 

and Drinking Water Exposure Assessments for Glyphosate and Its Salts (PC Code 

417300, 103601, 103604, 103607, 103608, 103613, 103603, 103605, 128501). 

Environmental Protection Agency.

EPA. (2010a) Climate change indicators in the United States. Washington DC: Environmental 

Protection Agency. Retrieved April, 2012 from 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/indicators/pdfs/ClimateIndicators_full.pdf.

EPA. (2010b) Draft 2010 Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks Executive 

Summary. Enviromental Protection Agency. Retrieved November, 2011 from 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/.

EPA. (2010c) EPA Registration Division Company Notice of Filing for Pesticide Petition 

Published in the Federal Register. Enviromental Protection Agency.

EPA. (2010d) Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 - 2008. 

Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved November, 2011 from 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads10/508_Complete_GHG_1990_

2008.pdf.

EPA. (2011a) Basic Information About ESPP. Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved 

March, 2012 from http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/endanger/basic-info.htm.

EPA. (2011b) Isoxaflutole Summary Document Registration Review: Initial Docket June 2011. 

Environmental Protection Agency.

EPA. (2011c) Isoxaflutole. Section 3 Registration for Use on Soybeans. Human-Health Risk 

Assessment. Environmental Protection Agency.

EPA. (2011d) Preliminary Problem Formulation for the Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk, 

Endangered Species, and Drinking Water Assessments in Support of the Registration 

Review of Isoxaflutole. Washington DC: Environmental Protection Agency.

EPA. (2012a) Pesticides: Endangered Species Protection Program. Environmental Protection 

Agency. Retrieved March, 2012 from http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/endanger/.

EPA. (2012b) Restricted-Use Pesticides. Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved January, 

2012 from http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/safety/applicators/restrict.htm.

FAPRI. (2009) U.S. and World Agricultural Outlook. Food and Agricultural Policy Research 

Institute. Retrieved February, 2012 from http://www.fapri.iastate.edu/outlook/2009/.

Ferguson R, Shapiro C, Dobermann A, and Wortmann C. (2012) Fertilizer Recommendations for 

Soybeans. University of Nebraska - Lincoln Extension, Institute of Agriculture and 

Natural Resources. Retrieved February, 2012 from 

http://www.ianrpubs.unl.edu/pages/publicationD.jsp?publicationId=146.

Fernandez-Cornejo J, Klotz-Ingram C, Heimlich R, Soule M, McBridge W, and Jans S. (2003) 

Economic and Environmental Impacts of Herbicide Tolerant and Insect Resistant Crops 

in the United States. In, The Economic and Enviromental Impacts of Agbiotech: A Global 

Perspective (pp. 63-88). N Kalaizandonakes (Ed.), New York, NY: Kluwer 

Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Fernandez-Cornejo J, Klotz-Ingram C, and Jans S. (2002) Farm-Level Effects of Adopting 

Herbicide-Tolerant Soybeans in the U.S.A. Journal of Agriculture and Applied 

Economics, 34(1), 149-163.

Fernandez-Cornejo J and McBride W. (2000) Genetically Engineered Crops for Pest 

Management in US Agriculture: Farm-Level Effects. Report 786. Washington DC: 
82

United States Department of Agriculture - Economic Research Service. Retrieved 

November, 2011 from http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer786/aer786.pdf.

Fernandez-Cornejo J, Nehring R, Sinha EN, Grube A, and Vialou A. (2009) Assessing recent 

trends in pesticide use in U. S. agriculture. Paper presented at the Meeting of the AAEA. 

Milwaukee, WI.

FSANZ. (2001) Food Derived from Glyphostate-tolerant Corn Line GA21 - A Safety 

Assessment. Canberra, Australia: Food Standards Australia New Zealand. Retrieved 

November, 2011 from http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/_srcfiles/TR7.pdf.

FSANZ. (2011a) Application A1051. Food Derived from Herbicide-Tolerant Soybean Line 

FG72 Approval Report. Food Standards Australia New Zealand. Retrieved March, 2012 

from 

http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/_srcfiles/A1051%20GM%20Soy%20FG72%20AppR

%20FINAL.pdf.

FSANZ. (2011b) Supporting Document 1 - Application A1051 - Food Derived from HerbicideTolertant Soybean Line FG72 - Safety Assessment Report - Summary and Conclusions. 

Canberra, Australia: Food Standards Australia New Zealand. Retrieved November, 2011 

from 

http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/_srcfiles/A1051%20GM%20Soy%20FG72%20AR%2

0SD1%20Safety%20Assess.pdf.

Galle A, Linz G, Homan H, and Bleier W. (2009) Avian Use of Harvested Crop Fields in North 

Dakota During Spring Migration. Western North American Naturalist, 69(4), 491-500.

Gamble L, Johnson K, Linder G, and Harrahy E. (2002) The migratory bird treaty act and 

concerns for nontarget birds relative to spring baiting with DRC-1339. Presented at 

Management of North American Blackbirds, Proceedings of a special symposium of The 

Wildlife Society, 9th Annual Conference. Bismarck, North Dakota.

Garbeva P, van Veen J, and van Elsas J. (2004) Microbial Diversity in Soil: Selection of 

Microbial Populations by Plant and Soil Type and Implications for Disease 

Suppressiveness. Annual Review of Phytopathology, 42(1), 243-270.

GINA. (2011) Livestock - #1 Customer for Soybean Meal. Growing in Agriculture. Retrieved 

December, 2011 from http://www.growinginagriculture.com/.

Givens W, Shaw D, Kruger G, Johnson W, Weller S, Young B, Wilson R, Owen M, and Jordan 

D. (2009) Survey of Tillage Trends Following The Adoption of Glyphosate-Resistant 

Crops. Weed Technology, 23(1), 150-155.

Grandy AS, Loecke TD, Parr S, and Robertson GP. (2006) Long-Term Trends in Nitrous Oxide 

Emissions, Soil Nitrogen, and Crop Yields of Till and No-Till Cropping Systems. 

Journal of Enviromental Quality, 35(4), 1487-1495.

Gregorich EG, Rochette P, Hopkins DW, McKim UF, and St-Georges P. (2006) Tillage-induced 

environmental conditions in soil and substrate limitation determine biogenic gas 

production. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 38(9), 2614-2628.

Gregorich EG, Rochette P, VandenBygaart AJ, and Angers DA. (2005) Greenhouse gas 

contributions of agricultural soils and potential mitigation practices in Eastern Canada. 

Soil and Tillage Research, 83(1), 53-72.

Harlan J. (1975) Our Vanishing Genetic Resources. Science, 188(4188), 617-621.

Hart M, Powell J, Gulden R, Dunfield K, Pauls K, Swanton C, Klironomos J, Antunes P, Koch 

A, and Trevors J. (2009) Separating the effect of crop from herbicide on soil microbial 

communities in glyphosate-resistant corn. Pedobiologia, 52, 253-262.
83

Hartnell F. (2010) Do Genetically Engineered Crops make Economic Sense. Paper presented at 

the Southwest Nutrition and Management Conference. Tempe, AZ.

Hausman NE, Singh S, Tranel PJ, Riechers DE, Kaundun SS, Polge ND, Thomas DA, and Hager 

AG. (2011) Resistance to HPPD-inhibiting herbicides in a population of waterhemp 

Amaranthus tuberculatus from Illinois, United States. Pest Management Science, 67(3), 

258-261.

Heap I. (2011a) International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. Weed Science. Retrieved 

November, 2011 from http://www.weedscience.org/In.asp.

Heap I. (2011b) The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds - 4-HPPD Inhibitors 

(F2/F27) Resistant Weeds by Species and Country. Weed Science. Retrieved November, 

2011 from http://www.weedscience.org/Summary/UspeciesMOA.asp?lstMOAID=10.

Helsel Z and Minor H. (1993) Soybean Production in Missouri. University of Missouri 

Extension. Retrieved November, 2011 from 

http://extension.missouri.edu/publications/DisplayPrinterFriendlyPub.aspx?P=G4410.

Higley L and Boethel D. (1994) Handbook of Soybean Insect Pests. The Entomological Society 

of America.

Hoeft R, Nafziger E, Johnson R, and Aldrich S. (2000) Modern Corn and Soybean Production. 

Champaign, IL: MCSP Publications.

Holland J. (2004) The Environmental Consequences of Adopting Conservation Tillage in 

Europe: Reviewing the Evidence. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment, 103(1), 1-

25.

HRAC. (2012) HRAC website. Herbicide Resistance Action Committee. Retrieved January, 

2012 from http://hracglobal.com/.

Hubbard K. (2008) A Guide to Genetically Modified Alfalfa. Western Organization of Resource 

Councils. Retrieved November, 2011 from 

<http://www.worc.org/userfiles/file/Guide_%20to_%20GM_%20Alfafa_%20v2.pdf>.

IPPC. (2007) Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change. Retrieved March, 2012 from 

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_

wg1_report_the_physical_science_basis.htm.

IPPC. (2010) Official web site for the International Plant Protection Convention: International 

Phytosanitary Portal International Plant Protection Convention. Retrieved March, 2012 

from https://www.ippc.int/IPP/En/default.jsp.

Johnsen AR, Wick LY, and Harms H. (2005) Principles of microbial PAH-degradation in soil. 

Environmental Pollution, 133(1), 71-84.

Johnson WG, Owen MDK, Kruger GR, Young BG, Shaw DR, Wilson RG, Wilcut JW, Jordan 

DL, and Weller SC. (2009) U.S. Farmer Awareness of Glyphosate-Resistant Weeds and 

Resistance Management Strategies. Weed Technology, 23(2), 308-312.

Karl T, Meehl G, Miller C, Hassol S, Waple A, and Murray W. (2008) Weather and Climate 

Extremes in a Changing Climate - Regions of Focus: North America, Hawaii, Caribbean, 

and U.S. Pacific Islands. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program. Retrieved October, 

2011 from http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap3-3/final-report/.

Krapu G, Brandt D, and Cox R. (2004) Less Waste Corn, More Land in Soybeans, and the 

Switch to Genetically Modified Crops: Trends with Important Implications for Wildlife 

Management. Lincoln, NE: USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. Retrieved 
84

April, 2012 from 

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1065&context=usgsnpwrc.

Lal R and Bruce J. (1999a) The potential of world cropland soils to sequester C and mitigate the 

greenhouse effect. Environmental Science and Policy, 2(2), 177-185.

Lal R and Bruce J. (1999b) The potential of world cropland soils to sequester C and mitigate the 

greenhouse effect. Environmental Science & Policy, 2(2), 177-185.

Lovett S, Price P, and Lovett J. (2003) Managing Riparian Lands in the Cotton Industry. Cotton 

Research and Development Corporation. Retrieved November, 2011 from 

http://www.cottoncrc.org.au/catchments/Publications/Rivers/Managing_Riparian_Lands.

Lubowski R, Vesterby M, Bucholtz S, Baez A, and Roberts M. (2002) Major Uses of Land in the 

United States, 2002. EIB-14. Enviromental Protection Agency. Retrieved November, 

2011 from http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/EIB14/eib14a.pdf.

Lupwayi NZ, Rice WA, and Clayton GW. (1998) Soil microbial diversity and community

structure under wheat as influenced by tillage and crop rotation. Soil Biology and 

Biochemistry, 30(13), 1733-1741.

MacGowan B, Humberg L, Beasley J, DeVault T, Retamosa M, and Rhodes O. (2006) Corn and 

Soybean Crop Depredation by Wildlife. Purdue Extension, Department of Forestry and 

Natural Resources. Retrieved November, 2011 from 

http://www.ces.purdue.edu/extmedia/FNR/FNR-265-W.pdf.

Massey R and Ulmer A. (2010) Agriculture and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. University of 

Missouri Extension. Retrieved January, 2012 from http://extension.missouri.edu/p/G310.

Maurhofer M, Hase C, Meuwly P, Metraux JP, and Defago G. (1994) Induction of systemic 

resistance of tobacco to tobacco necrosis virus by the root-colonizing Pseudomonas 

fluorescens strain CHA0: influence of the gacA gene and of pyoverdine production. 

Phytopathology, 84(2), 139-146.

McKellar RC. (1982) Factors influencing the production of extracellular proteinase by 

Pseudomonas fluorescens*. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 53(3), 305-316.

Mensah E. (2007) Economics of Technology Adoption: A Simple Approach. Sarrbruken, 

Germany: VDM Verlag.

Monsanto. (2010) Petition for the Determination of Nonregulated Status for Improved Fatty Acid 

Profile MON 87705. Submitted by Regulatory Affairs Manager. The Monsanto Company

(See Table: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/not_reg.html).

Montague K. (2012, 2/17) Personal Communication.

Mortensen DA, Egan JF, Maxwell BD, Ryan MR, and Smith RG. (2012) Navigating a Critical 

Juncture for Sustainable Weed Management. BioScience, 62(1), 75-84.

MSU Extension Service. (Undated) Ecology and Management of the Louisiana Black Bear. 

Mississippi State University Extension Service. Retrieved March 2012, from 

http://icwdm.org/Publications/pdf/Bears/bearsMSU.pdf.

NAPPO. (2009) NAPPO approved standards Retrieved April 18, 2011 from 

http://www.nappo.org/Standards/Std-e.html.

NBII. (2010) United States Regulatory Agencies Unified Biotechnology Website Retrieved 

2011 from http://usbiotechreg.nbii.gov/.

NCAT. (2003) NCAT's Organic Crops Workbook: A Guide to Sustainable and Allowed 

Practices. National Center for Appropriate Technology.

Non-GMO-Project. (2010) Non-GMO Project Working Standard. Retrieved from 

http://www.nongmoproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/NGP-Standard-v7.pdf.
85

NRC. (2010) The Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United 

States. Washington DC: National Academies Press.

NSRL. (2011) National Soybean Research Laboratory - Soybean Production Basics. National 

Soybean Research Laboratory. Retrieved November, 2011 from 

http://www.nsrl.illinois.edu/general/soyprod.html.

NY State IPM Program. (2012a) A Method to Measure the Environmental Impact of Pesticides. 

Cornell Cooperative Extension. Retrieved March, 2012 from 

http://nysipm.cornell.edu/publications/eiq/equation.asp#table2.

NY State IPM Program. (2012b) A Method to Measure the Environmental Impact of Pesticides. 

Cornell Cooperative Extension. Retrieved February, 2012 from 

http://nysipm.cornell.edu/publications/eiq/equation.asp#table2.

O'Brian D. (2010) U.S. Crop Acreage Trends and Soybean/Corn Price Ratios. Kansas State 

Research and Extension. Retrieved November, 2012 from 

http://www.agmanager.info/marketing/outlook/newletters/archives/GRAINOUTLOOK_12-10-10.pdf.

OECD. (1993).Safety considerations for biotechnology: Scale-up of crop plants. Paris, France. 

Last accessed from http://www.pecd.org

OECD. (2000).Consensus document on the biology of Glycine max (L.) Merr. (Soybean). Series 

on harmonization of regulatory oversight in biotechnology, No. 15. Last accessed from 

http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis

OECD. (2001) Consensus Document on Compositional Considerations for New Varieties of 

Soybeans: Key Food and Feed Nutrients and Anti-nutrients. Paris, France: Organisation 

for Economic Co-operation and Development. Retrieved November, 2011 from 

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/15/60/46815135.pdf.

OECD. (2010) Consensus Document on the Biology of Glycine Max (L.) Merr. (Soybean). Paris, 

France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Retrieved 

November, 2011 from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/16/56/46815668.pdf.

Owen M. (2010) Herbicide-Resistant Weeds in Genetically Engineered Crops - Statement of 

Micheal DK Owen, PhD. National Academies of Science. Retrieved December, 2011 

from 

http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ocga/testimony/t_Herbicide_Resistant_Weeds_in_G

E_Crops.asp.

Owen MDK, Young BG, Shaw DR, Wilson RG, Jordan DL, Dixon PM, and Weller SC. (2011) 

Benchmark study on glyphosate-resistant crop systems in the United States. Part 2: 

Perspectives. Pest Management Science, 67(7), 747-757.

Palmer W, Bromley P, and Anderson J. (2010) Pesticides and Wildlife - Soybeans. North 

Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. Retrieved March 2012, from 

http://ipm.ncsu.edu/wildlife/soybeans_wildlife.html.

Papiernik SK, Yates SR, Koskinen WC, and Barber B. (2007) Processes Affecting the 

Dissipation of the Herbicide Isoxaflutole and Its Diketonitrile Metabolite in Agricultural 

Soils under Field Conditions. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 55(21), 8630-

8639.

Penn State Extension. (2011) Soybean Insect Pests. Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences. 

Retrieved December, 2011 from http://extension.psu.edu/agronomyguide/pm/sec4/sec43a.
86

Potter KN, Torbert HA, Jones OR, Matocha JE, Morrison Jr JE, and Unger PW. (1998) 

Distribution and amount of soil organic C in long-term management systems in Texas. 

Soil and Tillage Research, 47(3-4), 309-321.

Ramanarayanan T, Narasimhan B, and Srinivasan R. (2005) Characterization of Fate and 

Transport of Isoxaflutole, a Soil-Applied Corn Herbicide, in Surface Water Using a 

Watershed Model. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 53(22), 8848-8858.

Raper C and Kramer P. (1987) Stress Physiology. In, Soybean: Improvement, Production, and 

Uses (pp. 589-641). J Wilcox (Ed.), Madison, WI: Agronomy Monograph 16.

Ray J, Kilen T, Abel C, and Paris R. (2003) Soybean natural cross-pollination rates under field 

conditions. Environmental Biosafety Research, 2(02), 133-138.

Rector RJ, Regehr DL, Barnes PL, and Loughin TM. (2003) Atrazine, S-metolachlor, and 

isoxaflutole loss in runoff as affected by rainfall and management. Weed Science, 51(5), 

810-816.

Rice PJ, Koskinen WC, and Carrizosa MJ. (2004) Effect of Soil Properties on the Degradation of 

Isoxaflutole and the Sorption−Desorption of Isoxaflutole and Its Diketonitrile Degradate. 

Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 52(25), 7621-7627.

Rochette P, Angers DA, Chantigny MH, and Bertrand N. (2008) Nitrous Oxide Emissions 

Respond Differently to No-Till in a Loam and a Heavy Clay Soil. Soil Science Society of 

America, 72(5), 1363-1369.

Ronald P and Fouce B. (2006) Genetic Engineering and Organic Production Systems. University 

of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Retrieved November 2011, 

from http://ucanr.org/freepubs/docs/8188.pdf.

Ronald P and Fouche B. (2006) Genetic Engineering and Organic Production Systems. 

University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Retrieved 

Publication 8188, from http://ucanr.org/freepubs/docs/8188.pdf.

Rosenzweig C, Iglesias A, Yang XB, Epstein PR, and Chivian E. (2001) Climate change and 

extreme weather events: Implications for food production, plant diseases, and pests. 

Global Change and Human Health, 2(2), 90-104.

Rouquié D, Capt A, Eby WH, Sekar V, and Hérouet-Guicheney C. (2010) Investigation of 

endogenous soybean food allergens by using a 2-dimensional gel electrophoresis 

approach. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 58(3, Supplement), S47-S53.

RSC. (2011) Isoxaflutole. Royal Society of Chemists. Retrieved November, 2011 from 

http://www.rsc.org/pdf/general/11isoxaf.pdf.

Ruhl G. (2012) Crop Diseases in Corn, Soybean, and Wheat. Department of Botany and Plant 

Pathology, Purdue University. Retrieved February, 2012 from 

http://www.btny.purdue.edu/extension/pathology/cropdiseases/soybean/Soybean.html.

Sandretto C and Payne J. (2006) Soil Management and Conservation. EIB16. United States 

Department of Agriculture - Economic Research Service. Retrieved November, 2011 

from http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/arei/eib16/eib16_4-2.pdf.

Sanger. (2012) Pseudomonas. Sanger Institute. Retrieved February, 2012 from 

http://www.sanger.ac.uk/resources/downloads/bacteria/pseudomonas.html.

SCF. (2002) Opinion of the Scientific Committee on Food on the safety assessment of the

genetically modified maize line GA21, with tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate. 

Brussels, Belgium: Scientific Committee on Food/European Commission/Health & 

Consumer Protection Directorate-General. Retrieved November, 2011 from http://ceragmc.org/docs/decdocs/06-031-001.pdf.
87

Schmidhuber J and Tubiello FN. (2007) Global food security under climate change. Proceedings 

of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(50), 19703-19708.

Scott B and VanGessel M. (2007) Delaware soybean grower survey on glyphosate-resistant 

horseweed (Conyza canadensis). Weed Science, 21(1), 270-274.

Scribner EA, Meyer MT, and Kalkhoff SJ. (2006) Occurrence of Isoxaflutole, Acetamide, and 

Triazine Herbicides and their Degradation Products in 10 Iowa Rivers Draining to the 

Mississippi and Missouri Rivers, 2004. United States Geological Survey. Retrieved 

February, 2012 from http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5169/pdf/text.pdf.

Smith KA and Conen F. (2004) Impacts of land management on fluxes of trace greenhouse 

gases. Soil Use and Management, 20(2), 255-263.

Southwood T and Way M. (1970) Ecological Background to Pest Management. In, Concepts of 

Pest Management (pp. 7-28). Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University.

Soy Connection. (2011) Soyfoods Guide 2011. United Soybean Board. Retrieved November, 

2011 from http://www.soyconnection.com/soyfoods/pdf/soyfoods_guide.pdf.

Soy Stats. (2010) U.S. Soybean Meal Production 1984 - 2009. Retrieved November, 2011 from 

http://www.soystats.com/2010/page_19.htm.

Soy Stats. (2011a) U.S. Soybean and Soy Products Exports 2010. American Soybean Board. 

Retrieved November, 2011 from http://www.soystats.com/2011/Default-frames.htm.

Soy Stats. (2011b) World Soybean Exports 2010. American Soybean Board. Retrieved 

November, 2011 from http://www.soystats.com/2011/Default-frames.htm.

Soy Stats. (2011c) World Soybean Production 2010. American Soybean Association. Retrieved 

November, 2011 from http://www.soystats.com/2011/Default-frames.htm.

Steenwerth KL, Jackson LE, Calderón FJ, Stromberg MR, and Scow KM. (2002) Soil microbial 

community composition and land use history in cultivated and grassland ecosystems of 

coastal California. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 34(11), 1599-1611.

Stewart N, Halfhill M, and Warwick S. (2003) Transgene introgression from genetically

modified crops to their wild relatives. Nature Review Genetics, 4(10), 806-817.

Sundstrom F, Williams J, Van Deynze A, and Bradford K. (2002) Identity Preservation of 

Agricultural Commodities. Agricultural Biotechnology in California Series, Publication 

8077. Retrieved March, 2012 from http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/8077.pdf.

Syngenta. (2010) Waterhemp Population in Central Illinois Seed Corn Production Field Resistant 

to HPPD-Inhibitor Herbicides. Syngenta USA. Retrieved March, 2012 from 

http://www.syngentacropprotection.com/news_releases/news.aspx?id=127116.

Syngenta. (2011) Callisto Label. Syngenta.

Taylor-Lovell S, Sims GK, and Wax LM. (2002) Effects of Moisture, Temperature, and 

Biological Activity on the Degradation of Isoxaflutole in Soil. Journal of Agricultural 

and Food Chemistry, 50(20), 5626-5633.

The Keystone Center. (2009) Environmental Resource Indicators for Measuring Outcomes of 

On-Farm Agriculture Production in the United States. The Keystone Center.

The Organic & Non-GMO Report. (2007) USDA Organic Report: Soybean Acreage Down, Corn 

Acreage Up. The Organic & Non-GMO Report. Retrieved January, 2012 from 

http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/feb07/organic_corn_soybeans.php.

US-NARA. (2010) Executive Orders disposition tables index. United States National Archives 

and Records Administration. Retrieved March 11, 2010 from 

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/disposition.html.
88

USB. (2011) SoyStats 2011. United Soybean Board. Retrieved December, 2011 from 

http://www.soystats.com/2011/Default-frames.htm.

USDA-AMS. (2010a) National Organic Program. United States Department of Agriculture -

Agricultural Marketing Service. Retrieved November, 2011 from 

http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/nop

USDA-AMS. (2010b) National Organic Program. Agricultural Marketing Service United States 

Department of Agriculture. Retrieved June 4, 2010 from 

http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/nop

USDA-APHIS. (1997) Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for 

Corn Line GA21. Riverdale, MD: United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service, Biotechnology Regulatory Services. Retrieved 

November, 2011 from http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/not_reg.html.

USDA-APHIS. (2008) Plant Pest Risk Assessment for Glyphosate-tolerant Cotton: GlyTolTM 

cotton Event GHB614. Riverdale, MD: United States Department of Agriculture, Animal 

and Plant Health Inspection Service, Biotechnology Regulatory Services. Retrieved 

November, 2011 from http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/not_reg.html.

USDA-APHIS. (2011) Assessment of Plant Pest Risk for MON 87701 Soybean. Retrieved April, 

2012 from http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/not_reg.html.

USDA-APHIS. (2012a) Petitions for Nonregulated Status Granted or Pending by APHIS United 

States Department of Agriculture - Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. 

Retrieved January, 2012 from http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/not_reg.html.

USDA-APHIS. (2012b) Plant Pest Risk Assessment of FG72 Soybean. Riverdale, MD: United 

States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 

Biotechnology Regulatory Services. Retrieved April, 2012 from 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/not_reg.html.

USDA-ERS. (2007) Emerging Issues in the U.S. Organic Industry - U.S. Market Growth 

Outpaces Domestic Supply. EIB55. United States Department of Agriculture - Economic 

Research Service. Retrieved January, 2012 from 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib55/eib55b.pdf.

USDA-ERS. (2009) Cotton: Background. United States Department of Agriculture - Economic 

Research Service. Retrieved February, 2012 from 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Cotton/background.htm.

USDA-ERS. (2010a) "No-Till" Farming is a Growing Practice. EIB70. United States 

Department of Agriculture - Economic Research Service. Retrieved November, 2011 

from http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/EIB70/EIB70.pdf.

USDA-ERS. (2010b) Oil Crops Outlook. OCS-10I. United States Department of Agriculture -

Economic Research Service. Retrieved November, 2011 from 

http://usda01.library.cornell.edu/usda/ers/OCS//2010s/2010/OCS-12-13-2010.pdf.

USDA-ERS. (2010c) Organic Production. United States Department of Agriculture - Economic 

Research Service. Retrieved November, 2011 from 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/Organic/.

USDA-ERS. (2010d) Soybean and Oil Crops: Background. United States Department of 

Agriculture - Economic Research Service. Retrieved November, 2011 from

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/SoybeansOilcrops/background.htm.
89

USDA-ERS. (2010e) USDA Agricultural Projections to 2019. United States Department of 

Agriculture - Economic Research Service. Retrieved December, 2011 from 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/OCE101/OCE101.pdf.

USDA-ERS. (2011a) Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S. Genetically

Engineered Soybean Varieties. United States Department of Agriculture - Economic 

Research Service. Retrieved November, 2011 from 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/BiotechCrops/ExtentofAdoptionTable3.htm.

USDA-ERS. (2011b) Agricultural Chemicals and Production Technology: Soil Management. 

United States Department of Agriculture - Economic Research Service. Retrieved 

November, 2011 from 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/agchemicals/soilmangement.htm.

USDA-ERS. (2011c) Agricultural Projections to 2020. United States Department of Agriculture 

- Economic Research Service. Retrieved November, 2011 from 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/OCE111/OCE111.pdf.

USDA-ERS. (2011d) The Changing Organization of US Farming. United States Department of 

Agriculture - Economic Research Service.

USDA-ERS. (2011e) The Ethanol Decade: An Expansion of U.S. Corn Production, 2000-09. 

EIB79. United States Department of Agriculture - Economic Research Service. 

Retrieved November, 2011 from http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/EIB79/EIB79.pdf.

USDA-ERS. (2011f) Nitrogen Used on Soybeans, Rates per Fertilized Acre Receiving Nitrogen, 

Selected States 1964 - 2006. United States Department of Agriculture - Economic 

Research Service. Retrieved December, 2011 from 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FertilizerUse/.

USDA-ERS. (2011g) Percentage of Soybean Acreage Receiving Nitrogen Fertilizer, Selected 

States 1964 - 2006. United States Department of Agriculture - Economic Research 

Service. Retrieved December, 2011 from http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FertilizerUse/.

USDA-NASS. (1996) Agricultural Chemical Usage - 1995 Field Crops Summary. United States 

Deparment of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics Service.

USDA-NASS. (2002) Agricultural Chemical Usage - 2001 Field Crops Summary. United States 

Department of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics Service.

USDA-NASS. (2007) Agricultural Chemical Usage - 2006 Field Crops Summary. United States 

Department of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics Service.

USDA-NASS. (2010) Table 29. Selected Crops Harvested by Chemigation and Water Source: 

2008 and 2003. 2007 Census of Agriculture. Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey. United 

States Department of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics Service. Retrieved 

November, 2011 from 

http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Online_Highlights/Farm_and_Ranch_I

rrigation_Survey/fris08_1_29.pdf.

USDA-NASS. (2011a) 2010 Corn, Upland Cotton, and Fall Potatoes Retrieved March, 2012 

from United States Department of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics Service 

http://www.nass.usda.gov/Data_and_Statistics/PreDefined_Queries/2010_Corn_Upland_Cotton_Fall_Potatoes/index.asp.

USDA-NASS. (2011b) Acreage. United States Department of Agriculture - National 

Agricultural Statistics Service. Retrieved November, 2011 from 

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/Acre/Acre-06-30-2011.pdf.
90

USDA-NASS. (2011c) Quick Stats 1.0. Retrieved November, 2011 from United States 

Department of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics Service 

http://www.nass.usda.gov/QuickStats/Create_Federal_All.jsp.

USDA-NRCS. (2006) Conservation Resource Brief: Air Quality, Number 0605. National 

Resources Conservation Service. Retrieved November 9, 2010 from 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/feature/outlook/Air%20Quality.pdf.

USDA-NRCS. (2011) Welcome to Energy Estimator: Tillage. United States Deparment of 

Agriculture - Natural Resources Conservation Services. Retrieved January, 2011 from 

http://ecat.sc.egov.usda.gov/.

USFWS. (2011a) Draft Environmental Assessment - Use of Genetically Modified, GlyphosateTolerant Soybeans and Corn on National Wildlife Refuge Lands in the Mountain–Prairie 

Region (Region 6). Riverdale, MD: United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service, Biotechnology Regulatory Services. Retrieved March, 

2012 from http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/not_reg.html.

USFWS. (2011b) Species Profile for Delmarva Peninsula Fox Squirrel (Sciurus niger cinereus). 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Retrieved March, 2012 from 

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A00B#lifeHistor

y.

USFWS. (2012) Environmental Conservation System Online. Retrieved March, 2012 from 

United States Fish and Wildlife Services 

http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/stateListingAndOccurrence.jsp.

Vaughan DA, Lu B-R, and Tomooka N. (2008) The evolving story of rice evolution. Plant 

Science, 174(4), 394-408.

Vogel J, Majewski M, and Capel P. (2008) Pesticides in Rain in Four Agricultural Watersheds in 

the United States. Journal of Enviromental Quality, 37(3), 1101-1115.

West TO and Marland G. (2002) A synthesis of carbon sequestration, carbon emissions, and net 

carbon flux in agriculture: comparing tillage practices in the United States. Agriculture, 

Ecosystems & Environment, 91(1-3), 217-232.

Wilson E. (1988) Biodiversity. National Academy Press. Retrieved April 2012, from 

http://books.google.com/books/about/Biodiversity.html?id=bI3cc2IMq9MC.

Wong V, Levi K, Baddal B, Turton J, and Boswell TC. (2011) Spread of Pseudomonas 

fluorescens Due to Contaminated Drinking Water in a Bone Marrow Transplant Unit▿. 

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 49(6), 2093-2096.

Yoshimura Y, Matsuo K, and Yasuda K. (2006) Gene flow from GM glyphosate-tolerant to 

conventional soybeans under field conditions in Japan. Environmental Biosafety 

Research, 5(3), 169-173.

Zapiola ML, Campbell CK, Butler MD, and Mallory-Smith CA. (2008) Escape and 

establishment of transgenic glyphosate-resistant creeping bentgrass Agrostis stolonifera 

in Oregon, USA: a 4-year study. Journal of Applied Ecology, 45(2), 486-494.
91

10 APPENDIX A: ISOXAFLUTOLE – DESCRIPTION AND CURRENT USES

Description and Mode of Action

Isoxaflutole (IFT) is a systemic, broad-spectrum herbicide initially developed for the control of 

problematic broadleaf and grass weeds in corn (Zea mays) and sugarcane (RSC, 2011). 

Degradation of IFT yields two sequential metabolites and may be mediated through metabolic or 

physical/chemical pathways (Figure A1). Following foliar absorption or root uptake, a rapid and 

non-enzymatic process sequentially converts IFT into a diketonitrile (DKN) derivative (Pallett et 

al., 1998). DKN is the major bioactive principle of IFT, and thus, primarily responsible for the 

herbicidal activity of IFT. DKN is further degraded into a benzoic acid derivative (Pallett et al., 

1998). Degradation or metabolism of IFT into DKN and the benzoic acid derivative is known to 

occur in soil, plants, and animals (EPA, 2011c). 

IFT is classified as a Group F2 bleaching herbicide (isoxazole chemical family) under the 

Herbicide Resistance Action Committee (HRAC). This is a relatively novel group of herbicides 

and includes the triketone (e.g., mesotrione and sulcotrione) and pyrazole (e.g., benzofenap, 

pyrazolynate, and pyrazoxyfen) chemical families (HRAC, 2012). In contrast to other 

carotenoid-inhibiting herbicide groups (e.g., F1 and F3), IFT possesses a unique mode of action 

(MoA). IFT, through degradation to its bioactive principle, targets 4-hydroxy phenylpyruvate 

dioxygenase (4-HPPD). Competitive inhibition of 4-HPPD by DKN reduces availability of 

cellular plastoquinone, an essential co-factor for phytoene desaturase activity in carotenoid 

biosynthesis (Figure A2). Consequently, a depletion of carotenoids impairs chloroplast 

development, leading to the typical bleaching of emerging foliar tissue and stunting of IFTsusceptible plant species (Pallett et al., 2001). Tolerance to IFT may be conferred by more rapid 

degradation of DKN benzoic acid derivative in planta (Pallett et al., 1998; RSC, 2011). 

Herbicidal activity requires IFT or DKN. Field soil half-life of IFT and DKN are 0.4 – 4.5 and 

10 – 39 days, respectively (Table A1). Aquatic photolysis half-life of IFT is 6.7 days; DKN is 

relatively stable in laboratory aquatic conditions, though dissipation half-life from 

sediment/water systems is 66 – 89 days (Ramanarayanan et al., 2005). The benzoic acid 

derivative is not considered toxicologically significant, and thus, does not display herbicidal 

activity against plants (EPA, 2011c).

Figure A1. Metabolic/degradative fate of isoxaflutole (IFT) in plants and soil. Reproduced 

from Pallett et al. (2001).
92

Figure A2. Activity of isoxaflutole (IFT) in plants. (A) Degradation of isoxaflutole yields a 

diketonitrile derivative in planta. (B) The diketonitrile derivative reduces carotenoid 

biosynthesis through inhibition of the 4-HPPD enzyme, thus precluding the production of the 

plastoquinol-9 cofactor necessary for (C) phytoene desaturase activity. Adapted from Pallett et 

al. (1998).
93

Table A1. Summary of environmental fate information for IFT and DKN.

 Reproduced from Ramanarayanan et al. (2005).

Regulatory Status of Isoxaflutole

The following is a summary of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) document entitled 

Isoxaflutole Summary Document Registration Review: Initial Docket June 2011 (EPA, 2011a). 

Additional section-specific information may be found in that document.

All pesticides distributed or sold in the U.S. are subject to registration by the EPA under 

authority of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Registration of a 

pesticide is dependent on consideration of scientific data demonstrating that a particular pesticide 

will not cause unreasonable risks to human health, workers, or the environment when used as 

directed on a product label. IFT was first conditionally registered on September 15, 1998. The 

conditional registration was extended on April 11, 2002 and unconditionally registered on 

October 8, 2004 (Montague, 2012). IFT is currently registered as a Restricted Use Pesticide due 

to non-target phytotoxicity concerns. In contrast to General Use Pesticides, IFT must be applied 

by or under the supervision of a certified applicator. At present, active EPA registrations 

include:

 8 Section 3 Registrations.

 20 Section 24(c) Special Local Need Registrations.

 1 Section 5 Experimental Use Permit (for use on IFT-tolerant soybean).

The Food Quality and Protection Act of 1996 mandated that the EPA conduct registration 

reviews of all pesticides distributed or sold in the U.S. every 15 years. Pursuant to Section 3(g) 

of FIFRA, EPA initiated a registration review for isoxaflutole in June 2011 (Docket Number: 
94

EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0979). EPA has developed an estimated timeline for the isoxaflutole 

registration review process. This is reproduced below in Table A2:

Table A2. Estimated isoxaflutole (IFT) registration review timeline.

 Registration Review for Isoxaflutole - Projected Registration Review Timeline

 Activities Estimated Date

Opening the Docket

Open Docket and Public Comment Period 2011 - June

Close Public Comment 2011 - August

Case Development

Final Work Plant 2011 - November

Issue DCI 2012 - July - Sep.

Data Submission 2014 - July - Sept.

Open Public Comment Period for Draft Risk Assessment 2016 - Jan. - March

Close Public Comment Period 2016 - April - June

Registration Review Decision

Open Public Comment Period for Proposed Registration Review 

Decision 2016 - July - Sept.

Close Public Comment Period 2016 - Oct. - Dec.

Registration Review Decision and Begin Post-Decision Follow-up 2017

Total (years) 6

Conclusions from Previous Isoxaflutole Assessments

The following is a summary of the EPA document Preliminary Problem Formulation for the 

Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk, Endangered Species, and Drinking Water Assessments 

in Support of the Registration Review of Isoxaflutole (EPA, 2011c). Additional information 

specific to this section may be found in that document.

An ecological risk assessment was completed by the EPA Environmental Fate and Effects 

Division (EFED) on May 2, 1997 (DP barcodes 225503+) for the proposed registration of IFT as 

a pre-plant or pre-emergence herbicide for the control of grassy and broadleaf weeds in field 

corn. A brief summary of the risks from the proposed use of IFT is provided below: 

 There is a phytotoxic risk to non-target aquatic and terrestrial plants from runoff of parent 

IFT and its degradation products.

 There is a phytotoxic risk to non-target terrestrial plants from found spray drift of parent 

IFT.

 Minimal adverse effects to non-target plants are expected from ground spray drift.

 Endangered plant species may be directly affected by the use of isoxaflutole.
95

 Chronic risks to birds, mammals, shrimp, and estuarine fish cannot be determined 

because data on the degradation products have not been received. [Note that data 

submitted subsequent to the 1997 assessment has indicated that only the Agency’s level 

of concern (LOC) for chronic risk to estuarine invertebrates is exceeded at rates of 

application at corn sites. Chronic risks LOCs to birds, mammals, and fish are not 

exceeded.]

 EFED expects that degradation products will persist and accumulate in surface water and 

shallow ground water surrounding treated areas. [Note that updated data since the 1997 

assessment supports this finding. Laboratory studies suggest that DKN and the benzoic 

acid derivative are stable to hydrolysis and photolysis in aqueous systems and hence pose 

a possible environmental concern.]

 There is a potential risk to other crops from the presence of potentially phytotoxic 

degradation products in irrigation water. However, the major areas of corn production 

that use irrigation (Western U.S. corn belt) have deep aquifers with slow recharge rates 

that are not likely to have sufficient concentrations of the degradation products to 

adversely affect other crops. In other parts of the U.S., where corn is also grown and 

where shallow ground water is used for irrigation, sporadic irrigation is used for other 

crops. Crops such as soybean, which are rotated with corn and are sensitive to irrigation 

waters containing IFT residues, could be adversely affected. Estimated maximum 

concentration of IFT residues in ground water exceeded the phytotoxic triggers to nontarget plants (e.g., other crops) up to 4,500 times, presuming that the degradation 

products are as toxic as parent IFT. [Note that updated data since the 1997 assessment 

indicate that IFT’s terminal metabolite, the benzoic acid derivative, does not demonstrate 

phytotoxicity for terrestrial plants. A developmental toxicity study in rats conducted with 

the benzoic acid derivative has been submitted to the Agency (MRID 45655906). The 

results of the study show that in the presence of maternal toxicity at the highest doses 

tested (750 mg/kg/day), there was no teratogenicity or developmental toxicity. These 

results and those of other toxicology studies and plant studies on the compounds suggest 

that the benzoic acid derivative of IFT is not toxicologically significant.]

On April 16, 2010, EFED completed an ecological risk assessment for an Experimental Use 

Permit (EUP) request from Bayer CropScience for IFT use on IFT-tolerant soybean. 

Additionally, EFED conducted another ecological risk assessment expanding the geographic 

extent of corn and considered the use of IFT on soybean. In these ecological risk assessments, 

IFT and its bioactive principle, DKN, were assessed for potential risk to non-target organisms. 

The conclusions are briefly summarized below:

 The Agency’s LOC for terrestrial non-target plants was exceeded for runoff and spray

drift exposure routes.

 Runoff from soybean and/or corn fields may contain residues of IFT and DKN. These 

waters, if used for irrigation on non-target plants (crops) may exceed the Agency’s LOC 

for non-target plants by up to 310X.

 The Agency’s LOC for aquatic non-target plants was not exceeded for listed and nonlisted species near soybean fields.

 The Agency’s acute or chronic LOCs for birds and mammals (listed and non-listed) were 

not exceeded.
96

 The Agency’s acute or chronic LOCs for fish or invertebrates (freshwater or estuarine) 

(listed and non-listed) were not exceeded.

On September 9, 2011, the EPA Health Effects Division (HED) completed a human-health risk 

assessment entitled Isoxaflutole. Section 3 Registration for Use on Soybeans. Human-Health 

Risk Assessment (EPA, 2011b) as a result of a request from Bayer CropScience to amend 40 

CFR 180.537 by establishing tolerances for combined residues of IFT and DKN in or on 

soybean. Additional information specific to this section may be found in that document. Acute 

and chronic toxicity profiles are presented below in Tables A3 and A4.

Table A3. Acute toxicity profile of isoxaflutole (IFT) and degradation products.

Guideline No./Study Type MRID No. Results

Toxicity 

Category

 Isoxaflutole Technical

870.1100/Acute oral toxicity 43573212 LD50 >5000 mg/kg IV

870.1200/Acute dermal toxicity 43573213 LD50 >2000 mg/kg III

870.1300/Acute oral toxicity 43573214 LC50 >5.23 mg/L IV

870.2400/Primary eye irritation 43573215 Non-irritating IV

870.2500/Primary dermal irrigation 43573216 Non-irritating IV

870.2600/Dermal sensitivity 43573217 Non-sensitizer N/A

 DKN Technical

870.1100/Acute oral toxicity 43904810 LD50 >5000 mg/kg IV

 Benzoic Acid derivative Technical

870.1100/Acute oral toxicity 43904812 LD50 >5000 mg/kg IV

Table A4. Subchronic and chronic toxicity and genotoxicity profile: Isoxaflutole (IFT) and 

products.

Guideline 

No./Study Type

MRID No. 

(Year)/Doses/Classification Results

 Isoxaflutole

870.3250 43573219 NOAEL = 1000 mg/kg/day.

21-day dermal 

(rat) LOAEL not observed.

0, 10, 100, or 1000 

mg/kg/day.

Acceptable (guideline)
97

Guideline 

No./Study Type

MRID No. 

(Year)/Doses/Classification Results

870.3700 43573220 Maternal NOAEL = 1000 mg/kg/day.

Developmental 

toxicity (rat) 0, 10, 100, or 1000 

mg/kg/day.

Maternal LOAEL = 500 mg/kg/day based 

on increased incidence of clinical signs 

and decreased body weight, body-weight 

gains and food consumption.

Acceptable (guideline) Developmental NOAEL = 10 mg/kg/day.

Developmental LOAEL = 100 mg/kg/day 

base on decreased fetal body weights 

and increased incidences of skeletal 

anomalies.

Developmental 

toxicity (rabbit) 43904808

0, 5 , 20, 100 mg/kg/day.

Maternal LOAEL = 100 mg/kg/day based 

on increased incidence of clinical signs, 

decreased body weight gains, and food 

consumption.

Acceptable (guideline)

Developmental NOAEL not observed.

Developmental LOAEL = 5 mg/kg/day 

base on increased incidence of fetuses 

with 27th pre-scaral vertebrae.

870.3800 43904809 Maternal NOAEL = 1.76 mg/kg/day.

2-generation 

reproduction 

(rat)

0/0, 0.45/0.46, 1.76/1.79, 

17.4/17.7, or 414/437 

mg/kg/day (M/F).

Maternal LOAEL = 17.4 mg/kg/day based 

on increased liver weights and 

hypertrophy in both sexes and 

generations.

Reproductive NOAEL = 437 mg/kg/day.

Reproductive LOAEL not observed.

Offspring NOAEL = 1.76 mg/kg/day.

Acceptable (guideline) Offspring LOAEL = 17.4 mg/kg/day based 

on reduced litter survival in both 

generations (F1 and F2 pups).

870.4100 43573218 Maternal NOAEL = 20 mg/kg/day.

Chronic toxicity 

(dogs)

0, 240, 1200, 12000, or 30000 

ppm (0, 8.56/8.41, 

44.81/45.33, 453/498, or -

/1254 mg/kg/day [M/F]).

Maternal LOAEL = 100 mg/kg/day based 

on increased incidence of clinical signs, 

decreased body weight gains, and food 

consumption.

Acceptable (guideline)

Developmental NOAEL not observed.

Developmental LOAEL = 5 mg/kg/day 

base on increased incidence of fetuses 

with 27th pre-scaral vertebrae.

870.4200 43904807

NOAEL = 25 ppm (3.24/4 mg/kg/day 

(M/F).

Carcinogenicity 

(mice) 0, 25, 500, or 7000 ppm (0/0, 

3.2/4, 64.4/77.9, or 

977.3/1161.1 mg/kg/day 

[M/F]).

LOAEL = 500 ppm (64.4/77.9 mg/kg/day 

(M/F), based on decreased body weight 

gains, increased liver weights, and 

increased incidences of histopathological 

liver changes.

Acceptable (guideline) Liver tumors observed at HDT.
98

Guideline 

No./Study Type

MRID No. 

(Year)/Doses/Classification Results

870.4300 43904806 NOAEL = 2 mg/kg/day.

Chronic toxicity/ 

Carcinogenicity 

(rats)

0, 0.5, 2, 20, or 500 

mg/kg/day.

LOAEL = 20 mg/kg/day, based on liver, 

thyroid, ocular, and nervous system 

toxicity (M) and liver toxicity (F).

Acceptable (guideline)

Liver and thyroid tumors observed at 

HDT.

870.5100 43588002 Negative.

In vitro bacterial 

reverse mutation 

(S. typhimurium)

Up to insoluable (> 500 

g/plate) concentrations =/-

S9.

Acceptable (guideline)

870.5300 43573222 Negative.

In vitro 

mammalian gene 

mutation (L5178Y 

mouse 

lymphoma)

Up to insoluable (> 150 

g/plate) or soluable (< 75 

mg/plate) concentrations +/-

S9.

Acceptable (guideline)

870.5375 43573221 Negative.

In vitro 

mammalian 

chromosomal 

aberration 

(lymphocytes)

Up to insoluable (> 300 g/ml 

-S9; < 600 g/ml +S9.

Acceptable (guideline)

870.5395 43573223 Negative.

In vivo 

mammalian 

cytogenetics 

(mouse 

micronucleus)

Up to 5000 mg/kg.

Acceptable (guideline)

870.6200 43904804 NOAEL = 125 mg/kg/day.

Acute 

neurotoxicity 

(rat)

0, 125, 500, or 2000 

mg/kg/day.

LOAEL = 500 mg/kg/day based on 

significant decreases in hind limb grip 

strength and landing food splay on day 

15.

Acceptable (guideline)
99

Guideline 

No./Study Type

MRID No. 

(Year)/Doses/Classification Results

870.6200 43904805 NOAEL = Not observed.

Subchronic 

neurotoxicity 

(rat)

0, 25, 250, or 750 mg/kg/day.

LOAEL = 25 mg/kg/day based on 

significant decreases in mean hind limp 

grip strength during both trials and week 

13 and a non-significant decrease in 

mean forelimb grip strength at week 13.

Acceptable (guideline)

870.6300 45215701 (2000) Maternal NOAEL = 25 mg/kg/day.

Developmental 

Neurotoxicity 

(rat)

0, 5, 25, or 250 mg/kg 

bw/day.

Maternal LOAEL = 250 mg/kg/day based 

on increased incidence of clinical signs, 

decreased body weight, body-weight 

gains, and food consumption

Tentative offspring NOAEL = 25 

mg/kg/day.

Unacceptable (guideline) -

morphometric measurements 

not performed

Tentative offspring LOAEL = 250 

mg/kg/day based on decreased body 

weight and brain weight (no effects at 

lower doses).

870.7485 

Metabolism (rat) 43573224

Rapidly and extensively absorbed and 

metabolized. 

1 and 100 mg/kg (single dose) 

1 mg/kg/day (15-day 

repeated dosing).

DKN represented 70% or more of the 

radioactivity excreted in the urine and 

feces. The benzoic acid derivative was 

more polar. Elimination was rapid and 

dose dependent. The majority of the 

radiolabel was eliminated in the first 

Acceptable (guideline) 24 and 48 hours for the low and high 

dose groups, respectively. The extensive

43904815 

Comparative metabolism 

study Unacceptable (nonguideline)

systemic clearance of the radiolabel was 

reflected in the low levels of radioactivity 

found in tissues at 168 hours postdosing. Sex-related differences were 

observed in the excretion and 

distribution pattern among high-dose 

rats. The elimination half-lives were 

similar among single low and high dose 

groups, with an estimated mean blood 

half-life of 60 hours. No sex differences 

were observed in the metabolism of 14Cisoxaflutole.
100

Guideline 

No./Study Type

MRID No. 

(Year)/Doses/Classification Results

870.7600 

Dermal 

penetration

44044702 3.46% absorption at 0.865 mg/cm2 after 

10 hours. 

0.865, 7.32, or 79 mg/cm2.

Acceptable (guideline)

870.7800 48283101 NOAEL = 4000 ppm (279 mg/kg/day).

Immunotoxicity LOAEL = not identified.

0, 160, 800, or 4000 ppm (0. 

6. 57. or 279 mg/kg/day).

Acceptable (guideline)

Mechanistic 

studies

43904816-43904820 Investigated ocular toxicity, tyrosinemia, 

and mode of action of liver and thyroid 

tumor formation in rats and mice

 DKN

870.5100 43904811 Negative.

In vitro bacterial 

reverse mutation 

(S. typhimurium)

Up to 500 g/plate +/- S9.

Acceptable (guideline)

 Benzoic Acid derivative

870.3100 43904813 (1995) NOAEL = 15000 ppm (1117.79/1268.73 

mg/kg/day [M/F]).

28-day oral rat 

(range-finding)

0, 150, 500, 5000, or 15000 

ppm (0.0, 11,14/12.68, 

37.57/42.7, 376.96/421.53 or 

1117.79/1268.73 mg/kg/day 

[M/F])

LOAEL not observed.

Acceptable (guideline)

870.3100 45655903 (1998) NOAEL = 12000 ppm (769/952

mg/kg/day [M/F]).

90-day oral (rat) 0, 1200, 4800, or 12000 ppm 

(0/0. 73.2/93.1, 306/371, or 

769/952 mg/kg/day [M/F]).

LOAEL not observed.

Acceptable (guideline)
101

Guideline 

No./Study Type

MRID No. 

(Year)/Doses/Classification Results

870.3700 45655906 Maternal NOAEL = 75 mg/kg/day.

Developmental 

toxicity rats 

(gavage)

0, 75, 250, or 750 mg/kg/day.

Maternal LOAEL = 250 mg/kg/day based 

on clinical signs (salivation and 

piloerection around time of treatment), 

decreased body-weight change, 

decreased corrected body-weight 

change, and decreased food 

consumption.

Acceptable (guideline) Developmental NOAEL = 750 mg/kg/day.

Developmental LOAEL not observed.

870.5100 43904814 Negative.

In vitro bacterial 

reverse mutation 

(S. typhimurium)

Up to cytotoxic 

concentrations (> 2500 

g/plate) +/- S9.

Acceptable (guideline)

870.5300 4454303 Negative.

In vitro 

mammalian gene 

mutation 

(CHO/HGPRT)

Up to > 2700 g/ml +/- S9.

Acceptable (guideline)

870.5375 44545301 Negative.

In vitro 

mammalian 

chromosomal 

aberration (CHO 

cells)

Up to > 2710 g/ml +/- S9.

Acceptable (guideline)

870.5395 44545301 Negative.

In vivo 

mammalian 

cytogenetics 

(mouse 

micronucleus)

0, 500, 1000, or 2000 mg/kg.

Acceptable (guideline)

As a result of this human-health assessment, HED determined that there is no residue chemistry, 

toxicological or occupational/residential exposure issue that would preclude establishment of an 

unconditional registration for IFT and its metabolites. These tolerances include: 

 HED-recommended tolerance for the combined residue of IFT and DKN on soybean is 

0.05 ppm.

 HED-recommended tolerance the combined residue of IFT and DKN on aspirated grain 

fractions of soybean is calculated as 0.30 ppm.
102

Current Use and Usage Information

At present, IFT is registered as a Restricted Use Pesticide (RUP) in field corn by the EPA under 

authority of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (EPA, 2011a). In 

contrast to General Use Pesticides, IFT may only be applied by certified applicators or under the 

supervision of a certified applicator (EPA, 2012). Additionally, an experimental use permit for 

use of IFT on IFT-tolerant soybean was approved on April 27, 2010 (Bayer, 2011a).

IFT may be found in the following herbicide formulations: Balance Pro®; Balance Flexx®(IFT + 

cyprosulfamide); CorvusTM (IFT + thiencarbazone + cyprosulfamide); and RadiusTM (IFT + 

flufenacet) (Bayer, 2011c). Additionally, DuPont also produces PrequelTM (IFT + Rimsulfuron) 

(DuPont, 2012).

IFT registrations for field corn can only be used in the following states: Arkansas, Colorado, 

Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, 

Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming (Bayer, 2011b). The 

listed states participate in developing/following label restrictions to mitigate the possibility of 

adverse effects to non-target plants. An example of restrictions for use in field corn is presented 

in Table A5. More label information can be found at: 

http://iaspub.epa.gov/apex/pesticides/f?p=PPLS:1:1863164510650266 

IFT registration for IFT-tolerant soybean can be used in the same states as field corn, except 

Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Texas (Bayer, 2011a). The listed states also participate in 

developing/following label restrictions to mitigate the possibility of adverse effects to non-target 

plants. Table A6 presents a summary of proposed IFT use in IFT-tolerant soybean and an 

example of restrictions for use in IFT-tolerant soybean is presented in Table A7. Restrictions for 

IFT use in soybean are the same as corn, including the maximum application rate of 3.0 fluid 

ounces/year. More label information can be found at: 

http://iaspub.epa.gov/apex/pesticides/f?p=PPLS:1:1863164510650266
103

Table A5. Specific use directions for Balance® PRO herbicide alone as part of a planned 

sequential weed control program. Source: Bayer (2011b).

Table A6. Proposed directions for use of isoxaflutole (IFT) on isoxaflutole-tolerant soybean 

varieties. Source: EPA (2011b).
104

Table A7. Specific use directions for Balance® PRO herbicide applied alone, as a tank-mix, or 

as part of a planned sequential program for weed control in isoxaflutole (IFT) tolerant soybean 

varieties. Source: Bayer (2011a).
105

References

Bayer. (2011a) Balance PRO Herbicide Registration. Bayer CropScience. Retrieved January, 

2012 from http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/ppls/000264-00600-

20111107.pdf.

Bayer. (2011b) Bayer Balance PRO. Bayer CropScience. Retrieved January, 2012 from 

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/ppls/000264-00600-20110103.pdf.

Bayer. (2011c) Petition for the Determination of Nonregulated Status for Event FG72. Submitted 

by Isabelle S. Coats, Regulatory Affairs Manager. Bayer Crop Science (See Table: 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/not_reg.html).

DuPont. (2012) Prequel Label. Dupont. Retrieved January, 2012 from 

http://www2.dupont.com/Production_Agriculture/en_US/label_msds_info/labels/SL1664A.pdf.

EPA. (2011a) Isoxaflutole Summary Document Registration Review: Initial Docket June 2011. 

Environmental Protection Agency.

EPA. (2011b) Isoxaflutole. Section 3 Registration for Use on Soybeans. Human-Health Risk 

Assessment. Environmental Protection Agency.

EPA. (2011c) Preliminary Problem Formulation for the Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk, 

Endangered Species, and Drinking Water Assessments in Support of the Registration 

Review of Isoxaflutole. Washington DC: Environmental Protection Agency.

EPA. (2012) Restricted-Use Pesticides. Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved January, 

2012 from http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/safety/applicators/restrict.htm.

HRAC. (2012) Classification of Herbicides According to Modes of Action. Herbicide Resistance 

Action Committee. Retrieved January, 2012 from 

http://www.plantprotection.org/hrac/MOA.html.

Montague K. (2012, 2/17) Personal Communication.

Pallett KE, Cramp SM, Little JP, Veerasekaran P, Crudace AJ, and Slater AE. (2001) 

Isoxaflutole: the background to its discovery and the basis of its herbicidal properties. 

Pest Management Science, 57(2), 133-142.

Pallett KE, Little JP, Sheekey M, and Veerasekaran P. (1998) The Mode of Action of 

Isoxaflutole: I. Physiological Effects, Metabolism, and Selectivity. Pesticide 

Biochemistry and Physiology, 62(2), 113-124.

Ramanarayanan T, Narasimhan B, and Srinivasan R. (2005) Characterization of Fate and 

Transport of Isoxaflutole, a Soil-Applied Corn Herbicide, in Surface Water Using a

Watershed Model. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 53(22), 8848-8858.

RSC. (2011) Isoxaflutole. Royal Society of Chemists. Retrieved November, 2011 from 

http://www.rsc.org/pdf/general/11isoxaf.pdf.
106

11 APPENDIX B: GLYPHOSATE – SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FATE AND 

TOXICITY PROFILE

Glyphosate acid is non-selective, systemic foliar herbicide used to control weeds in agricultural 

and non-agricultural sites, including forestry, greenhouse, and residential sites. Glyphosate 

functions as a specific inhibitor of the enzyme, 5-enolpyruvylshikimate 3-phosphate synthase 

(ESPS), effectively precluding plant aromatic amino acid synthesis (e.g., tyrosine, tryptophan, 

and phenylalanine) and leading to plant cell death (EPA, 2009, 2011). 

The following is a summary of the environmental fate and toxicity profile from the EPA 

document Preliminary Problem Formulation for the Ecological Risk and Drinking Water 

Exposure Assessments for Glyphosate and its Salts (EPA, 2009). Additional information form 

this section may be found in that document. 

 Based on the EPA Reregistration Eligibility Decision in 1993 (EPA, 1993), EPA 

concluded that direct risks to birds, mammals, invertebrates, and fish would be minimal. 

Under certain conditions, glyphosate may pose a risk to aquatic plants. Additionally, 

endangered plants and the Houston Toad may be at risk from glyphosate use.

 In 2003, the USDA Forest Service conducted a risk assessment for glyphosate (USDAFS, 2003). Based on the available data, USDA-FS concluded that the risks due to 

glyphosate were minimal for mammals, birds, fish, invertebrates, and aquatic plants. 

However, at an application rate of 7 lbs. a.e./acre, the acute exposure slightly exceeded 

the acute LC50 and exceeded the LC50 by a factor of two for more tolerant and less 

tolerant freshwater fish, respectively. These values were determined, however, from a 

worse-case scenario where severe rainfall occurred in an area where runoff is favored. 

Additionally, tolerant terrestrial plants did not appear at risk from low-boom spray

application of glyphosate at distances of 25 feet or greater. For more sensitive plants, this 

distance increased to approximately 1000 feet. No risks to terrestrial plants from runoff 

were expected, due to the high sorption of glyphosate to soil particles. 

 In 2004, EPA assessed the potential of glyphosate to affect 11 federally listed Pacific 

salmonids (Patterson, 2004). The conclusion of that assessment was that glyphosate may, 

but is not likely, to negatively affect the salmonids based on acute toxicity to fish for 

application rates above 5 lbs. a.i./acre. The EPA also concluded that there would be no 

effect from glyphosate on salmonids at application rates below 5 lbs. a.i./acre. 

 In 2008, EPA assessed the potential direct and indirect effects on the California redlegged frog (Rana aurara draytonii) resulting from the use of glyphosate on agricultural 

and non-agricultural sites (Carey et al., 2008). The EPA concluded that there was no 

direct effect on the aquatic-phase California red-legged frog for any terrestrial or aquatic 

uses of glyphosate. The terrestrial phase California red-legged frog may be at risk 

following direct chronic exposure to glyphosate at application rates of 7.5 lbs. a.e./acre 

and above. Additionally, terrestrial-phase amphibians may be at risk following acute 

exposure to one particular formulation (Registration number 524-424) at 1.1 lbs 

formulation/acre. Indirect effects to the aquatic phase California red-legged frog, based 

on reduction in the prey base, may occur with aquatic non-vascular plants that are 
107

managed at an application rate of 3.75 lbs. a.e./acre. Indirect effects to the California redlegged frog, based on reduction in prey base, may occur with small insects at any

registered rate; large insects at an application rate of 7.95 lbs. a.e./acre; terrestrial phase 

amphibians following chronic exposure glyphosate at application rates of 7.5 lbs. 

a.e./acre and above; at an acute exposure to the formulation listed above; and, mammals 

following chronic exposure at application rates of 3.84 lbs. a.e./acre. Indirect effects to 

both the aquatic- and terrestrial-phase California red-legged frog, based on habitat 

effects, may occur following the management of aquatic plants with glyphosate.

Table B1. Physical and chemical properties of glyphosate.
108

Table B2. Environmental fate data for glyphosate.
109

Table B2 continued.
110

Table B3. Aquatic toxicity profile for glyphosate and/or its salts.
111

Table B4. Terrestrial toxicity profile for glyphosate and/or its salts.
112

References

Carey S, Crk T, Flaherty C, Hurley P, Hetrick J, Moore K, and Termes S. (2008) Risks of 

Glyphosate Use to Federally Threatened California Red-legged Frog. Environmenal 

Protection Agency.

EPA. (1993) R.E.D. Facts - Glyphosate. Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved Match, 

2012 from http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/factsheets/0178fact.pdf.

EPA. (2009) Registration Review- Preliminary Problem Formulation for the Ecological Risk and 

Drinking Water Exposure Assessments for Glyphosate and Its Salts (PC Code 417300, 

103601, 103604, 103607, 103608, 103613, 103603, 103605, 128501). Environmental 

Protection Agency.

EPA. (2011) Isoxaflutole Summary Document Registration Review: Initial Docket June 2011. 

Environmental Protection Agency.

Patterson M. (2004) Glyphosate: Analysis of Risks to Endangered and Treatened Salmon and 

Steelhead. Environmental Production Agency. Retrieved March, 2012 from 

http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/endanger/litstatus/effects/glyphosate-analysis.pdf.

USDA-FS. (2003) Glyphosate - Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Final Report. 

SERA RT 02-43-09-04a. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 

Retrieved March, 2012 from 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/hfqlg/publications/herbicide_info/2003_glyphosate.pdf.
113

12 APPENDIX C: SUPPLEMENTAL FIGURES AND TABLES

Figure C1. Global distribution of herbicide-resistant biotypes, 2010. Color intensity is 

associated with an increasing number of herbicide-resistant biotypes. Reproduced from Heap 

(2012).

Figure C2. Global herbicide-resistant biotypes by mode of action, 1950 – 2010. Reproduced 

from Heap (2012).
114

Table C1. Soybean acreage in U.S. states, 2010.

State 2000 2005 2010

Alabama 160,000 145,000 345,000

Arkansas 3,150,000 3,000,000 3,150,000

Colorado - - -

Connecticut - - -

Delaware 213,000 182,000 173,000

Florida 15,000 8,000 23,000

Georgia 140,000 175,000 255,000

Illinois 10,450,000 9,450,000 9,050,000

Indiana 5,480,000 5,380,000 5,330,000

Iowa 10,680,000 10,000,000 9,730,000

Kansas 2,500,000 2,850,000 4,250,000

Kentucky 1,160,000 1,240,000 1,390,000

Maine - - -

Maryland 515,000 470,000 465,000

Massachusetts - - -

Michigan 2,030,000 1,990,000 2,040,000

Minnesota 7,150,000 6,800,000 7,310,000

Mississippi 1,580,000 1,590,000 1,980,000

Missouri 5,000,000 4,910,000 5,070,000

Montana - - -

Nebraska 4,575,000 4,660,000 5,100,000

New Jersey 98,000 91,000 92,000

New Mexico - - -

New York 132,000 188,000 279,000

North Carolina 1,360,000 1,460,000 1,550,000

North Dakota 1,850,000 2,900,000 4,070,000

Ohio 4,440,000 4,480,000 4,590,000

Oklahoma 290,000 305,000 475,000

Oregon - - -
115

State 2000 2005 2010

Pennsylvania 385,000 420,000 495,000

South Carolina 430,000 420,000 455,000

South Dakota 4,370,000 3,850,000 4,140,000

Tennessee 1,150,000 1,100,000 1,410,000

Texas 260,000 230,000 185,000

Vermont - - -

Virginia 480,000 510,000 540,000

Washington - - -

West Virginia 15,000 17,000 18,000

Wisconsin 1,500,000 1,580,000 1,630,000

U.S. Total 72,408,000 71,251,000 76,610,000

 Source: USDA-NASS (2011a).

Table C2. Irrigation of soybean acres in U.S. states, 2007.

State Acreage Irrigated acreage Percent irrigated 

acreage

Alabama 179,673 2,124 1.18

Arkansas 2,819,478 1,843,478 65.38

Colorado 2,948 1,882 63.84

Connecticut 294 (D) -

Delaware 155,548 24,528 15.77

Florida 12,066 212 1.76

Illinois 8,293,711 70,513 0.85

Indiana 4,783,821 82,454 1.72

Iowa 8,612,810 50,481 0.59

Kansas 2,591,428 261,588 10.09

Maine 766 - -

Maryland 386,604 20,663 5.34

Massachusetts 247 - -

Michigan 1,715,427 66,556 3.88

Minnesota 6,273,919 92,688 1.48
116

State Acreage Irrigated acreage Percent irrigated 

acreage

Mississippi 1,431,085 483,004 33.75

Missouri 4,672,738 365,094 7.81

Montana 409 (D) -

Nebraska 3,834,855 1,570,110 40.94

New Jersey 79,218 4,730 5.97

New Mexico (D) - -

New York 199,775 (D) -

North Carolina 1,380,792 13,830 1

North Dakota 3,073,792 13,830 0.45

Ohio 4,236,337 1,056 0.02

Oklahoma 180,878 12,497 6.91

Oregon (D) (D) -

Pennsylvania 431,053 (D) -

South Carolina 442,461 8,943 2.02

South Dakota 3,222,872 52,661 1.63

Tennessee 976,011 4,077 0.42

Texas 93,453 16,269 17.41

Vermont 2,011 - -

Virginia 490,396 8,007 1.63

Washington 725 385 53.10

West Virginia 13,717 - -

Wisconsin 1,363,124 24,855 1.82

U.S. Total 63,915,821 5,237,075 8.19

 Source: USDA-NASS (2011b).
117

Table C3. Common soybean insect pests.

Common name (Scientific name)

Pod, stem, and seed feeders

Southern green stink bug (Nezara viridula) Three-cornered alfalfa hopper (Spissistilus festinus)

Green stink bug (Acrosternum hilare) Lesser cornstalk borer (Elasmopalpus lignisellus)

Brown Stink Bug (Euschistus servus/Euschistus spp.) Dectes stem borer (Dectes texanus taxanus)

Bean leaf beetle (Ceratoma trifurcata) Seedcorn maggot (Delia plautura)

Corn earworm (Helicoverpa zea)

Foliage feeders

Soybean looper (Pseudoplusia includens) Twospotted spider mite (Tetranychus urticae)

Velvetbean caterpillar (Anticarsia gemmatalis) Mexican bean beetle (Epilachna varivestis)

Green cloverworm (Plathypena scabra) Potato leafhopper (Emopasca fabae)

Beet armyworm (Spodoptera exigua) Silverleaf whitefly (Bemisia argentifolii)

Fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) Bandedwinged whitefly (Trialeurodes abutilonea)

Yellow striped armyworm (Spodoptera ornithogalli) Grasshopper (Melanoplus spp.)

Yellow woolybear (Spilosoma virginica) Soybean thrips (Neohydatothrips variabilis)

Root and nodule feeders

Soybean nodule fly (Rivellia quadrifasciata) White grubs (Phyllophaga spp.)

Banded cucumber beetle (Diabrotia balteata) Grape colaspis (Colaspis brunnea)

Source: Boethel (2004).

Table C4. Common weeds in soybean production: Midwest Region. Reproduced 

From Monsanto (2010). Number provided in parentheses is the number of states

out of the thirteen total states in the Midwest Region that reported each weed.

Foxtail spp. (12) Ragweed, giant (3) Dandelion (1)

Pigweed spp. (11) Shattercane (3) Johnson grass (1)

Velvetleaf (11) Quackgrass (3) Milkweed, honeyvine (1)

Lambsquaters (10) Buckwheat, wild (2) Nightshade, hairy (1)

Cocklebur (9) Crabgrass, spp (2) Oats, wild (1)

Ragweed, common (7) Kochia (2) Pokeweed, common (1)

Smartweed spp (6) Mustard, wild (2) Prickly sida (1)

Morning glory spp. (5) Nightshade, Eastern black (2) Proso millet, wild (1)

Sunflower, spp (5) Palmer amaranth (2) Sandbur, field (1)

Waterhemp spp. (5) Canada thistle (1) Venice mallow (1)

Horseweed (marestail) (3) Chickweed (1) Volunteer cereal (1)

Panicum, fall (3) Cupgrass, woolly (1) Volunteer corn (1)
118

Table C5. Common weeds in soybean production: Eastern coastal Region. Reproduced 

From Monsanto (2010). Number provided in parentheses is the number of states out 

of the thirteen total states in the Eastern Coastal Region that reported each weed.

Ragweed, common (8) Jimson weed (4) Dandelion (1)

Cocklebur (7) Sicklepod (3) Goosegrass (1)

Morning glory spp. (7) Florida pusely (2)

Nightshade, Eastern Black 

(1)

Crabgrass spp. (6) Johnson grass (2) Panicum, Texas (1)

Foxtail spp. (6) Palmer amaranth (2) Prickly sida (1)

Lambsquaters (6) Quackgrass (2) Shattercane (1)

Pigweed spp. (6) Arrowleaf sida (1) Signalgrass, broadleaf (1)

Velvetleaf (6) Beggarweed, Florida (1) Smartweed spp (1)

Nutsedge spp. (5) Burcucumber (1)

Panicum, fall (5) Canada thistle (1)

Table C6. Common weeds in soybean production: Mid-south Region. Reproduced 

From Monsanto (2010). Number provided in parentheses is the number of states out 

of the thirteen total states in the Mid-south Region that reported each weed.

Morning glory spp. (5) Pigweed spp. (3) Ragweed, common (1)

Prickly sida (5) Crabgrass spp. (2) Ragweed, giant (1)

Johnson grass (4) Palmer amaranth (2) Red rice (1)

Sicklepod (4) Cocklebur (1) Smartweed (1)

Signalgrass, broadleaf (4) Copperleaf, hophorn (1) Spurge, nodding/hyssop (1)

Barnyard grass (3) Florida pusely (1) Spurge, prostrate (1)

Hemp sesbania (3) Horseweed (marestail) (1)

Nutsedge spp. (3) Poinsettia, wild (1)
119

References

Boethel D. (2004) Integrated Management of Soybean Insects. In, Soybeans: Improvement, 

Production, and Uses. Third Edition (pp. 853-881). R Al-Amoodi, J Harper, R Wilson 

and R Shoemaker (Eds.). Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy. Crop Science 

Society of America. Soil Science Society of America.

Monsanto. (2010) Petition for the Determination of Nonregulated Status for Improved Fatty Acid 

Profile MON 87705. Submitted by Regulatory Affairs Manager. The Monsanto Company

(See Table: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/not_reg.html).

USDA-NASS. (2011a) Quick Stats 1.0. Retrieved November, 2011 from United States 

Department of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics Service 

http://www.nass.usda.gov/QuickStats/Create_Federal_All.jsp.

USDA-NASS. (2011b) Quick Stats 2.0. Retrieved November, 2011 from United States 

Department of Agriculture 

http://www.nass.usda.gov/Data_and_Statistics/Quick_Stats/index.asp.
120

13 APPENDIX D: SOYBEAN COMMODITY PRODUCTION

Commodity Production Industry: Contracts are typically signed with growers when the specialty 

seed is purchased, obligating the growers to supply harvested seed under given conditions, such 

as all the soybean from a certain number of committed acres, specifying methods of productions 

and where the seed may be sold, and establishing standards for the product when delivered. 

Contracts between the growers and an oil crusher may be signed, and after oil is crushed, the 

bulk oil processer companies arrange for sale to food or industrial buyers (ADM, 2006).

In the production of soybean seed for commodity or IP use, two industries are relevant. The first 

are businesses that sell seed for planting and applied chemicals, and the second are the buyers of 

soybean grain, the elevators. Both are needed to produce specialty soy products. When a grower 

purchases specialty seeds, he will be required to produce his soybeans for a designated elevator, 

and a contract with the elevator may specify means of production, crop performance and seed 

quality. 

Soybean meal is the most important product deriving from soybean seed and meal is the product 

that drives demand for soybean rather than oil. Oil comprises only 19% by weight of the 

soybean (Tyson et al., 2004). Thus, oil is a minor product of the crushing industry. As noted 

earlier, soybean meal is predominantly fed to animals while a small percentage is used for human 

consumption or industrial uses.

Animal Feed Users: Animal feeds are the major use for soybean meal, consuming about 77 

percent of the total meal produced (Soy Connection, 2011a). The mixed rations for poultry, 

hogs, cattle, dairy cows, domestic pets, and farmed fish often are formulated with soybean meal. 

In 2008/2009, 10.3 million metric tons of meal was used in broiler rations, 9.1 million tons in 

hog rations and 1.9 million tons in beef rations (USB, 2010). The other animal industries used 

7.7 million tons for feeding operations. A variety of industries prepares, formulates, 

manufactures and distributes animal feeds. 

Fresh and Processed Food Users: Various industries supply all types of processed and fresh 

foods derived from soybean (Soy Connection, 2011b). Grain products from soy include flours,

pasta, bread, waffles, and cereal. Oil products include margarines, salad and frying oils. 

Simulated meats include soy burgers, hot dogs, nuggets, and tofu. Vegetable uses include 

edamame, and soy nuts. Simulated milk products include soymilk beverage, soy cheese, 

yoghurt, and ice cream.

Oil Users: In the production of oils from oilseed such as soybean, two general industries can be 

identified (O'Brien, 2004). The first is the crusher/refiner whose focus may be oil feedstocks 

deriving from a single source of oilseed. The crushing business, which extracts crude vegetable 

oil and meal, sends the oil to refiners, or may retain some for industrial and fuel users. The 

refiners may be separate physically from the crushing business and may subject oil to including 

degumming, refining, bleaching, dewaxing, fractionating, interesterifying, hydrogenating, 

changing the melting points of the oil, blending and deodorizing. The refiner may then package 

the liquid oil, produce margarines, shortening, and bulk fats or oils. Specialty oils, when 

produced at facilities making commodity oils, are produced in batches or only semi continuously

and supply specialized needs of the food processing or other commercial products industries. The 
121

total value of products from the primary soybean processing industry was estimated at $18

billion (US Census Bureau, 2009). 

The second industry comprises the many value-added businesses which may employ starting 

feedstocks from soy seed or other oilseed sources, and which manufacture products from 

commodity oil or a variety of specialized oils. These include food and industrial product 

manufacturers in a wide variety of offerings to businesses, retailers and consumers. 

Foods: The properties of oils that are used in foods may vary widely, and these result from the 

fatty acids that are incorporated into constituent triglycerides. The positions of the fatty acids 

within the triglycerides also may help determine these properties. Specific fatty acids have 

associated chemical properties (such as reactivity) and physical properties (such as melting 

points), as well as other functional properties which are taken into account when they are 

incorporated into foods. Oils high in unsaturated fatty acids are useful in making solid fat 

products such as baking shortenings (O'Brian, 2009a), while oils low in saturated fats are useful 

for salad oils (O'Brian, 2009b). Trans-esterification may be used to change the positions of the 

fatty acids in the triglyceride, or exchange one for another, all of which can alter oil properties. 

When fatty acids are oxidized, flavor is adversely affected, and this is referred to as “reverted” 

oil. Reverted soybean oil has a “beany” or “grassy” flavor (O'Brien, 2004). Oils that are high in 

polyunsaturates are the most susceptible to such oxidation among food oils. Linoleic and 

particularly linolenic in traditional soybean oil are those fatty acids most easily oxidized. 

Hydrogenation of soybean salad oils reduces the content of linolenic acid, a polyunsaturated oil, 

and typically, will reduce it from 9% to 3% (O'Brien, 2004). Reducing the unsaturated linolenic 

acid decreases the possibility that off- flavors will develop. This process also produces “trans” 

fatty acids, which have been linked to deleterious consequences for human health, and have 

encouraged the development of other soybean lines with altered fatty acid content.

Industrial (Non-Edible Products) Use: Soybean oil is a feed stock for numerous products used in 

several domestic industries. Biodiesel provides the largest market for soybean oil (Table D1), 

with production at 1,192 million liters in 2010 (USB, 2011). Soybean biodiesel in 2007 had a 

value of $1.09 billion dollars. By comparison, fuel ethanol had a value of $6.6 billion (US 

Census Bureau, 2009). Soaps, amines, fatty acids and oleo chemicals is the second largest 

consumer of industrial soybean oil at 140,000 metric tons (see Table D1) (USB, 2011). Paints, 

coatings and inks rank third, with 118,000 metric tons, and polyols and plastics with 115,000 

metric tons. Lubricants and working fluids produced a total 26,000 metric tons, and solvents and

specialty uses a total of 22,000 tons.
122

Table D1. Industrial soybean oil production 2008 - 2009.

Product

Soybean oil

(million

metric tons)

Biodiesel 0.822

Soaps, Amines, Fatty Acids & Oleo Chemicals 0.140

Paints, Coatings & Inks 0.115

Polyols & Plastics 0.127

Total Industrial Meal 0.055

Lubricants & Working Fluids 0.026

Solvents & Specialty 0.022

Other Industrial Products 0.010

Total Industrial Whole Bean <0.001

Source: USB (2011).
123

References

ADM. (2006) ADM to Process Monsanto’s VistiveTM Low Linolenic Soybeans at Indiana 

Facility. Retrieved November, 2011 from http://www.adm.com/enUS/news/_layouts/PressReleaseDetail.aspx?ID=170.

O'Brian R. (2009a) Baking Shortenings. In, Fats and Oils: Formulating and Processing for 

Applications). Boca Raton: CRC Press.

O'Brian R. (2009b) Liquid Oils. In, Fats and Oils: Formulating and Processing for 

Applications). Boca Rotan, FL: CRC Press.

O'Brien R. (2004) Fats and Oils - Formulating and Processing for Applications. Boca Raton, 

FL: CRC Press.

Soy Connection. (2011a) Food and Fuel: Meeting the Challenges of Feeding the World and 

Creating Renewable Fuels. United Soybean Board. Retrieved November, 2011 from 

http://www.soyconnection.com/soybean_oil/pdf/foodvsfuel_soy_biofuels.pdf.

Soy Connection. (2011b) Soyfoods Guide 2011. United Soybean Board. Retrieved November, 

2011 from http://www.soyconnection.com/soyfoods/pdf/soyfoods_guide.pdf.

Tyson S, Bozell J, Wallace R, Petersen E, and Moens L. (2004) Biomass oil analysis: Research 

needs and recommendations. NREL/TP-510-34796. National Renewable Energy

Laboratory. Retrieved December 2011 from 

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/34796.pdf.

US Census Bureau. (2009) 2007 Economic Census, Sector 31: Manufacturing: Industry Series: 

Products Statistics for the United States: 2007 , Fats and Oils: Oilseed Crushings. United 

States Census Bureau. Retrieved December, 2011 from 

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-

fds_name=EC0700A1&-_skip=100&-ds_name=EC0731I2&-_lang=en.

USB. (2010) Animal Agriculture Economic Analysis: 1999-2009. United Soybean Board. 

Retrieved December, 2011 from 

http://unitedsoybean.org/images/uploads/multimedia/National_Animal_Agriculture_Econ

omic_Analysis_2010.pdf.

USB. (2011) Online Market View Database. Domestic Data 2008/2009. United Soybean Board. 

Retrieved October, 2011 from 

http://usb.adayana.com:8080/usb/reports/domestic_data.jsp.